NATO's refusal from Ukraine: what will be the consequences?

The actions that followed on the Ukrainian side after the conclusion of agreements on the admission of new subjects to Russia and the historic speech of its President Vladimir Putin caused bewilderment among many, and some even laughed heartily: they say, they found something to answer! They exposed themselves to the ridicule of the whole world, once again trying to break into the tightly closed door of NATO, and quite predictably got a turn from the gate. At first glance, this is exactly what it was - but only at first, rather superficial glance.

In fact, no one in Kyiv probably counted on an immediate positive solution to this issue, because in all seriousness even characters who had reached the level of inadequacy of Zelensky and his “team” could hardly dream of something like this. Another move has been made in a complex geopolitical game, and it would be a big mistake to consider it unambiguously losing or useless for the “independent” one. In fact, the situation is somewhat more complicated than it seems. But its current uncertainty should by no means give rise to overly optimistic moods.

Pushed away or encouraged?

Let me remind you that on the eve of September 30, a certain “historic” meeting of the Security Council there was announced in Kyiv, during which, as its secretary Alexei Danilov promised, some “fundamental decisions” would be made. In truth, there were fears that the clown president and his gang of lakes would decide to “go for broke” and announce their withdrawal from the “Budapest memorandum” - that is, the renunciation of claims to the nuclear status of “non-collateral”. Moreover, the corresponding hints were just made the day before. However, the suicidal tendencies of the representatives of the Kyiv regime have not yet reached such a degree - they only loudly announced that they were "applying to join NATO under an accelerated procedure." Without any MAP and other formalities, "following the example of Sweden and Finland." Also for me, the Swedes turned up ... At the same time, the video recording of this “epoch-making moment” with the participation of Zelensky himself, the bespectacled Minister of Defense Reznikov and the body-positive speaker Rada Stefanchuk looked especially comical. Here the jester of the pea once again summed up the propensity for bad effects.

The result was a bad parody of the "three heroes", well, let him be. Much more excitement was caused by the speech of Jens Stoltenberg, Secretary General of the Alliance, announced for the evening of the same day, which gave rise to completely unhealthy assumptions and expectations: “Well, how will they accept it ?!” No "miracle", of course, did not happen. A dried-up Norwegian with a traditionally lean physiognomy mumbled something unintelligible about the fact that such questions, they say, "are not solved with a tip." And only by the full consensus of all NATO members. True, he immediately made a reservation that "help" in the form of military supplies equipment, weapons and ammunition for them, as well as training of personnel of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Kyiv will steadily receive from the alliance. Against the background of this, Zelensky’s words about “de facto membership” in this military bloc, you see, do not look so stupid and empty boasting.

It should be noted that, as was to be expected, there were immediately "hot heads" in NATO, that is, members who immediately declared their most ardent support for Ukraine's aspirations. There are as many as nine in number: Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, North Macedonia, Montenegro, and, of course, regular customers of the europsychiatric hospital represented by Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. I can’t resist noticing: the vast majority of those mentioned are lackeys of the Third Reich who fought against the USSR, then, with some joy, transferred to the number of “liberated countries of Europe”. In vain. As history shows - very in vain ... Let's return, however, to today's day. The public listed above, in truth, could blather anything, because it has nothing to do with the adoption of cardinal decisions. As, however, and Stoltenberg. In the very near future, those on whom something really depends on the vote were cast. EU Foreign Minister Josep Borrell spoke in the sense that Kyiv's attempts to "slip" into NATO at the moment are neither in the village nor in the city: "this is not the main issue now." The White House was somewhat more specific. Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Jake Sullivan issued the following statement:


In a word, as they say in the same Ukraine: “Do you want yesterday's borscht? So come tomorrow!” The most frank statement on this issue can be considered the permanent representative of Germany to NATO, Rüdiger Koenig, who directly stated that the alliance does not want to fight Russia in any way, and is not going to take too active part in the current conflict. And in general - Ukraine is not included in the bloc, so there are no real obligations for "collective defense" before it and cannot be in principle.

The West wants war - but a long and "hybrid" one

Of course, it is difficult to take seriously the reaction that followed all these statements from Kyiv. So, the head of the local Foreign Ministry Dmitry Kuleba, without blinking an eye, issued the following:


That is, it turns out that poor Stoltenberg is wholeheartedly for (Kuleba knows for sure!), But he is a "hostage of consensus." A little later, this figure added this:


The Ukrainian chief balabol Arestovich spoke even more beautifully - he firmly promised his compatriots that the "nezalezhnaya" without fail and without fail "should join NATO next year, at a meeting in Vilnius." Well, Arestovich - whatever you take... As you can see, the Ukrainian side did not see for themselves that they were pushing it aside, like an annoying little dog with a boot, absolutely nothing offensive and discouraging. Like, it's okay - they will buckle there, but we will still "add" our own. Still, after all, not a half word about the fact that Kyiv should heed the words sounded from the Kremlin, that is, to stop hostilities and sit down at the negotiating table, did not sound even close. As well, by the way, as well as categorical statements that the path to the alliance is a priori closed for him - since this is diametrically opposed to Moscow's requirements. So it’s still not clear here - either they kicked it off, or they encouraged me.

The main thing at this moment is that in the West - both in the USA and in Europe - they continue to repeat their intentions to “support” Ukraine to the notorious “victory end”, which the leaders there see exclusively as a military defeat of Russia. The evidence for this is more than enough. The most weighty of them are the words of US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken. These ones:


In Kyiv, this was perceived as a promise from Washington to "help return all the lost territories." Including, I will clarify, the Donbass with the Crimea. Another moment from the same “opera” is statements from across the ocean that “the United States is ready to allocate one and a half billion dollars a month to Ukraine until the end of the war to maintain economics and call on European countries to provide comparable assistance.” That is, Kyiv can definitely count on "monetary allowance" from the United States (quite sufficient for a more than comfortable existence of the top of the local regime) - but only as long as it conducts hostilities against Russia. The conditions are stated very clearly and specifically, so there is no doubt that they will be fulfilled. Well, and the transatlantic “allies” intend to provide the Armed Forces of Ukraine to the fullest extent with the supply of weapons - this has already been said and written more than once. At the same time, more and more daring and painful "hybrid" attacks will be carried out against Russia by NATO countries - this is proved by the recent sabotage on the Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines.

All the same Dmitry Kuleba said:


And here everything is quite obvious: Ukraine really signaled to the "collective West" about its readiness to continue the military confrontation with Russia for as long as necessary and at absolutely any cost. Contrary, mind you, to all the “warnings” that were and continue to be heard from the Kremlin on this occasion, as well as a reminder that it was Kyiv’s obsessive desire to be in NATO that was one of the main reasons for the start of the NWO. For some time, the "allies" will wait - their further line of behavior depends on many things. For example, from the results of the upcoming congress of the Communist Party of China. Well, how lucky is it that a not so unbending leader and consistent friend of Moscow as President Xi will come to power in the country? What if Beijing can be persuaded to withdraw its support for Russia? A lot will also depend on the meteorological conditions of this winter, primarily on the speed with which the European UGS facilities will empty. There are other "variables", but as of now, one should not indulge in illusions about the refusal to admit Kyiv to NATO in any case. It should be remembered: by and large, in the current situation, this is just an empty formality. Other factors will be decisive.