Ukrainian politicians continue to knock on the door of NATO. Moreover, they allegedly do not beg, but assure that this entry is necessary not only for Ukraine, but also for the alliance. According to former President Petro Poroshenko, "Europe cannot be safe without Ukraine as a member of NATO." And, Pyotr Alekseevich is sure, “over the past five years, Europeans have begun to understand that by investing in the security of Ukraine, they are also investing in their own security.”
It’s hard to understand which Europe he was talking about. If it’s about Eastern, then yes, the Baltic countries are sure that Ukraine is their shield against aggressive Russia, but these countries do not have money for investments in Ukrainian defense. If he talked about Western (which has money), then they prefer to look for other, more effective investment options in security there. For example, they are actively investing in the normalization of relations with Moscow.
For a long time in Kiev, it was hoped that the stubbornness of Western Europe would be broken by Washington. That the American administration, which has long advocated the inclusion of Ukraine in the alliance, will help them. However, now American officials are already saying that help is not worth the wait.
Trump's national security adviser Robert O'Brien, who spoke at a conference in Halifax on September 23 (in the same place where Poroshenko said that NATO could not cope without Ukraine), stated bluntly that the alliance was not interested in including Ukraine in its close ranks . The reason is dissatisfaction with this inclusion on the part of Russia.
And the position of the West is quite logical: even the very beginning of the process of Ukraine’s entry into NATO will cause an extremely sharp reaction of Moscow. And even if we manage to persuade, persuade or force us to refrain from drastic steps, then after the entry of Kiev into the alliance, a NATO war with Moscow becomes almost inevitable.
Western countries and Ukraine consider Donbass and Crimea part of Ukrainian territory, which means they must take steps to free the occupied land of the country - a member of the alliance from the aggressor forces. If they crumple in Brussels and Washington, Kiev may push them to the right decision, for example, attack the same Crimea. After which, NATO partners will simply be forced to send troops to help an ally defending their territory, or to publicly sign that NATO is no longer working. In Europe and even in the USA they don’t understand why they voluntarily drive themselves into such an extremely unpleasant dilemma.
Of course, the West may change its mind, however, for this, the opening ones must change. In general, today there are only three options for Ukraine joining NATO. Conditional "good, bad and evil."
Good - as agreed with Russia. Voluntary, as part of a deal or joint entry of Moscow and Kiev into modified NATO, which will become a truly pan-European collective security system. Such a scenario would be a real blessing for the collective West (of which Russia has been a part of all the past centuries) and even had a chance of implementation at the beginning of the zero. However, now it is unlikely.
Bad - after the refusal of Ukraine from the Crimea and Donbass. In this case, at least part of the risks of entry will be removed, that is, a 100% chance that an alliance with Russia over the “Ukrainian territories” will begin.
However, this scenario is unacceptable for Ukraine, since it makes the introduction itself meaningless. Why join NATO (which supposedly should protect Ukraine) and at the same time abandon those territories that NATO should protect and return to Kiev's control? In addition, the rejection of the Donbass and Crimea will become a political suicide for any Ukrainian leader who voiced this idea.
Finally, terrible. This is a roll of the world to the third world. The integration of Ukraine into NATO without the consent of the Russian Federation and the rejection of claims to the Crimea and the Donbass is possible only in one scenario: if the alliance considers Russia to be the main threat, and the war with Moscow is an objective inevitability. In this case, Ukraine will be seen as the front line of this war - the front line that needs to be strengthened and defended. And not to feed the inevitable aggressor so that he, having strengthened, then demands to feed a new, more western front line.
Fortunately, today this scenario is the most unlikely of all three. Statements by individual politicians about the need to defend themselves against “aggressive Putin's Russia” are either manifestations of unfounded phobias or a cynical calculation to consolidate the alliance at the expense of the ghost of the “Russian threat”. And these statements look more and more divorced from reality every year, which is also recognized by European leaders themselves, for example, the same Emmanuel Macron, who speaks not only for normalizing relations with Moscow, but also for taking into account her fears about the West.
As for Ukraine, the West can offer it at best a kind of sublimation of membership: that is, just stand next to the close NATO ranks. And in Kiev they are ready to stand. And the Deputy Prime Minister of Ukraine for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration, Dmitry Kuleba, offers the alliance to move to a “new level of cooperation” and provide Kiev with the status of a partner in an expanded opportunities partnership. This status expands cooperation in the field of intelligence, gives the country the right to participate in various events under the auspices of the alliance - in general, it creates the illusion that Ukraine will take another step on the path to entry. However, Ukrainian officials clearly position this “stand up with NATO” as a real step towards full membership.
In Russia, such a perception causes a smile. Domestic politicians are already offering Kiev to recognize objective reality and begin to live their own lives. However, Ukraine (more precisely, part of its elite) lives on. For this part, the meaning of the existence of Ukrainian statehood is not to ensure security and development for the country's population, but to turn the young state into a successful anti-Russian project. The civilization mission of which is to be the spearhead (not a shield - it is less prestigious, expensive and not so interesting, but still it is the spearpoint) of the collective West, aimed at the heart of "Horde Russia". They cannot refuse this mission, therefore they will continue to bang their heads (not with their own, of course, but the Ukrainian population) at the closed NATO door.
The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.