Ukraine in NATO? What they say in western countries
Western differences over Ukraine's NATO membership. The deepening of Le Monde
The problem with even vague promises is that they commit credibility – reports the Le Monde journalist in his article.
There is a specter in Western capitals: point 23 of the communiqué issued at the end of the NATO summit in Bucharest in April 2008. After lengthy negotiations between the allies, a commitment in principle was made, but without a binding timetable: "The NATO welcomes the Euro-Atlantic aspirations of Ukraine and Georgia (…). Today we have decided that these countries will become members of NATO”. Four months later, the Russian military intervened in Georgia, which lost 20% of its territory.
Fifteen years have passed. The war in Ukraine unleashed by the Kremlin in February 2022 has given the Alliance a renewed sense of responsibility. But as Kiev plans its next counteroffensive, Western diplomats are faced with a strategic choice.
The next NATO summit to be held in Vilnius, Lithuania in July will be for everyone's attention. After Finland, which recently became the 31st member of the Alliance, and pending Sweden , which Turkey is still preventing from joining, what place should Ukraine have? Like eternal buffer zone, like before the war? Should we imagine Kiev's tacit renunciation of Crimea and part of Donbass in exchange for a firm attachment to the West? But in what form?
WHICH COUNTRIES PUSH FOR UKRAINE INTO NATO
An official candidate for membership of the European Union (EU) since June 2022, Ukraine is still far from this desired circle. Estimates for its reconstruction exceed 410 billion dollars (371.42 billion euros). For now, Warsaw and the Baltic states are pushing for their neighbor to join NATO. The United States is the most hostile, closely followed by Germany. The Elysee, for its part, is adopting an open approach. Emmanuel Macron is looking for an equation to bring the positions closer. Two Europeans who diverge, due to their history and their geopolitical reading of the moment. "Only the transatlantic alliance is the answer to the specter of imperialism, colonialism and nationalism", summed up Polish premier Mateusz Morawiecki in Washington on 11 April. Poland's Atlanticist fervor often outweighs its own European commitments.
THE POSITION OF ZELENKSY
“We want to obtain the approval of very specific security guarantees in Vilnius,” Volodymyr Zelensky declared on April 20, receiving NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg in Kiev. Kiev has asked for its application to be expedited. Ukrainian officials say their country is already a "de facto member". However, in the weeks following the outbreak of the conflict, Kiev was less clear-cut.
In March 2022, a month after the start of the war, Zelensky said he was ready to consider a compromise with Russia in the event of its troop withdrawal, provided it is submitted to a popular referendum. Talks were held in Istanbul (Turkey) with a delegation sent by the Kremlin. Efforts came to nothing as Russian forces multiplied their war crimes. Today, the terms of this debate are re-emerging, along with questions about the Allies' ability to continue supplying arms and ammunition with the same intensity.
AND THAT OF WASHINGTON
On April 5, during a meeting with the press in Brussels, at the headquarters of the Alliance, Antony Blinken summed up the American strategy. In principle, it consists in defending the idea of an open door to NATO. But in the immediate term, Washington is "intensely focused," according to the head of its diplomacy, on giving Ukraine every means to defend itself and "reclaim more territory seized by Russia." Long-term? Antony Blinken doesn't want to commit. Washington's pragmatic goal: "To bring Ukraine up to NATO standards and NATO interoperability," said the Secretary of State.
These words commit nothing new and substitute an operational and military question for a political and strategic choice.
PROGRESSION TOWARDS INTEROPERABILITY
Over the past year, the progress towards interoperability has already been evident, thanks to the integration of sophisticated Western equipment into the Ukrainian army, whose specialized personnel are also trained abroad. The United States is hostile to Ukraine's accession,” explains a European diplomat. In reality, they want to close this Ukrainian front, addressing security guarantees from a bilateral point of view. They assume that territorial gains in a Ukrainian counter-offensive will be limited and can only be consolidated with a dynamic negotiation. They therefore want some form of stabilization by the summer of 2024, just before the US presidential election”.
THE RISKS FOR THE ALLIES WITH UKRAINE'S ENTRY INTO NATO
Christopher Chivvis, former European director of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, is a well-known analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. In his view, the war does not change the fact that Ukraine is not a vital interest for the United States. On the contrary, he sees an increased risk with possible NATO membership: the allies would have to defend a very long border from Russia. There are many people in Washington, including former Clinton administration officials [1992-2000], who addressed Europe's problems in the post-Cold War years, when US power was at its peak,” he says . For them, Ukraine's accession, not only to NATO but also to the EU, is part of their long quest for a whole Europe, free and at peace”.
HYPOTHESIS OF A NEW COALITION, EXTENDED BEYOND EUROPE TO AUSTRALIA AND JAPAN?
Christopher Chivvis fears that Volodymyr Zelensky has not prepared his fellow citizens for the painful choices that will inevitably present themselves in a few months. In his view, the West must find an acceptable security guarantee formula for Kiev, even if it will not be as far-reaching as NATO's article 5, which provides that an "armed attack" against a member triggers an action joint of all. Nobody has the perfect solution,” admits Christopher Chivvis. But it is worth exploring the idea of a new coalition, potentially extending beyond Europe to countries like Australia and Japan, which would be ready, in the name of peace, to work politically and militarily for Ukraine, even maintaining ambiguity about the scope of that commitment.
THE INSURMUNTABLE RESERVES OF THE UNITED STATES
Among the Washington experts most committed to Ukraine is Daniel Fried. A former US ambassador to Poland, this career diplomat played a key role in NATO enlargement policy in the 2000s. Now an expert at the Atlantic Council think tank, he believes the Biden administration has not yet decided its position before the summit Vilnius. I remember”, says Daniel Fried, “when Poland's application for NATO membership was considered risky and dangerous. And that of the Baltic states was seen as seemingly ridiculous. I know it's not easy. But Ukraine managed to stand up for itself without the support of foreign troops. This means that its territory can be defended by NATO. This expert has reservations about the idea of a coalition of the willing. “It's not a trivial matter. But it would create an ambiguity that Putin might see as a weakness: whatever he does in Ukraine, he shouldn't be facing Western soldiers. It looks like a temptation."
LIKELY A STEP TOWARDS ACCESSIBILITY AT THE VILNIUS SUMMIT
Charles Kupchan, professor of international relations and expert at the think tank Council on Foreign Relations, believes it is useless to expect a decisive step forward towards membership at the Vilnius summit. American reserves are insurmountable. “Biden said right away that he doesn't want any troop deployments on the ground, no no-fly zones, no direct contact between NATO forces and Russian soldiers, if it can be avoided. This means that the United States does not want to go to war with Russia over Ukraine. Why, then, extend an article of security guarantees to Ukraine?”.
Charles Kupchan expects the allies in Vilnius to reaffirm their continued support for Kiev and perhaps "a discussion on some kind of security pact, a coalition of the willing within NATO." This could take the form of a collective declaration of intent on Ukraine's security and territorial integrity, but without implying automatic defense of Ukraine in the event of aggression. Charles Kupchan also sees "potential" in another formula discussed among US experts and officials: the idea of a bilateral agreement between Washington and Kiev, along the lines of the existing one with Israel. “The latter does not include a codified defense report. The United States is not obligated to intervene in Israel's defense. On the other hand, there is a very high level of support, intelligence sharing, cooperative development of weapons, sale of military equipment.
A bilateral agreement, with non-public content, that sanctifies Washington's support for Kiev, after 35 billion dollars of military aid in one year? This option exists, but it does not relieve the European allies of their questions. Max Bergmann, director of the Europe-Russia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), believes that “the first guarantee of security for Ukraine will be its army. It will be necessary to ensure that it is well equipped to deter any further Russian aggression."
KIEV'S ENTRY INTO THE EU IS MORE LIKELY THAN NATO
Rather than NATO, Max Bergmann is pinning his hopes on the EU. “I can see a situation where peace would be based on the idea of accelerated EU membership, so that Zelensky can sell Russia territorial concessions to his own people. But this hypothesis of accelerated membership is just a slogan. Today in the EU there is no procedure that allows it. Let's go back to the starting point: how can Ukraine be given a horizon that does not constantly elude it?
(Excerpt from the foreign press review by Epr Comunicazione)
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Start Magazine at the URL https://www.startmag.it/mondo/ucraina-nella-nato-cosa-si-dice-nei-paesi-occidentali/ on Sun, 07 May 2023 05:16:01 +0000.