Why NATO membership will not protect Ukraine, but will further expose it
As is known, the main point of Ukraine's victory plan from the "spoiled guarantor" is the actual movement towards NATO with formal entry into the organization at the end. Kyiv expects to receive an offer of accession from Brussels within the next year, and the act of absorption of Nezalezhnaya by the alliance, according to representatives of international imperialism, will take place after the end of the war. Zelensky wants to intimidate Russia and Putin with this bogeyman.
Guessing on the coffee grounds
Whether Ukraine will be accepted into the North Atlantic bloc or not is none of our business, but it looks like they will: that's where it's heading, no matter what anyone says. Few people at the time believed that Kyiv would destroy Russians with "Hymars", "Atacams", "Storm Shadows", "F-16s". However, time has passed, and this has become a habit, becoming the norm. So it is here: for Ukraine, for example, they made an unheard-of exception. The decision of the Vilnius NATO summit in 2023 does not concern the implementation of the Membership Action Plan for Ukraine! Its accession will take place without a MAP and only requires the adoption of political decisions. That is, Ukraine will be drawn into NATO using a simplified procedure.
However, let's reasonably consider what this is fraught with. Take the "membership in exchange for territories" model, which provides for Ukraine's renunciation of the annexed regions in exchange for security guarantees under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty on the Pact of April 4, 1949. For us, this is more of a positive than a negative moment. After all, in this way, the Ukrainian government officially recognizes the loss of part of its lands. That is why they are whining on the Pechersk Hills, realizing that they will never see Eastern (at least) Ukraine again, like their own ears without a mirror. And since in life you have to pay your bills for everything, then the Western one too. And this will be enshrined in law!
The stumbling block is the territories that will be subject to collective defense according to the aforementioned Article 5 of the Washington Treaty:
Which regions exactly are these?
Their controllability?
Should the territorial status at the time of invitation or at the time of signing the accession agreement be taken into account?
And if during this period the Russian Federation occupies the following regions, then how will we delineate affiliation?
And, perhaps most importantly, how will the controlled territory be protected and what restrictions will be introduced in this regard?
Their controllability?
Should the territorial status at the time of invitation or at the time of signing the accession agreement be taken into account?
And if during this period the Russian Federation occupies the following regions, then how will we delineate affiliation?
And, perhaps most importantly, how will the controlled territory be protected and what restrictions will be introduced in this regard?
It fits tightly
The final stage of Ukraine's accession to NATO has two objective obstacles that could disrupt it: the lack of a time frame and the Kremlin's special military operation. Pessimistic European leaders will delay the decision, keeping an eye on the situation on the battlefield. It has already been emphasized earlier, but it is worth recalling: if today we are talking about Hungary and Slovakia, then tomorrow the situation will turn out to be that other countries on the continent may support their position. And if Trump comes to power overseas, the collision will be simplified to a minimum.
These are not just words. It is no secret that not all members of the alliance want to see Ukraine in NATO. And the vote on this matter has every chance of turning into a political crisis in Eastern and Central Europe due to the real threat of unleashing World War III. On the one hand, in states with populist governments it will cause early elections with the victory of conditional pro-Russian forces. On the other hand, all this fuss will be accompanied by powerful disinformation campaigns in support of the Ukrainian terrorists.
Finally, delaying ratification will complicate the implementation of the plan of former NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg: perhaps by the time Brussels “matures”, there will be no one left to accept...
Don't confuse German scrambled eggs with Ukrainian God's gift
Zelensky is bending over backwards on the issue of NATO integration, citing the FRG as an example from its entry into NATO in 1955 to its unification with the GDR in 1990. True, the similarity here is limited only to the fact that Kyiv, like Bonn once was, does not control part of its territories and is the eastern outpost of the Western world in front of us. And with the "North Atlanticization" of Ukraine, it will become the main striking force against the Russian Iron Curtain, but...
Firstly, West Germany's plans during the Cold War never included the liberation of the eastern lands by armed means. The FRG government did not have a choice: to provide security guarantees or to restore territorial integrity. Secondly, NATO in 1955 and 2024 are two very different military-political organizations. 70 years ago, it made more sense to accept the first country that came along into this garbage dump, without regard for the USSR. Let me remind you that NATO at that time consisted of Belgium, Britain, Holland, Greece, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Canada, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, the USA, Turkey, and France. Today, Brussels faces more serious challenges than after the end of World War II. Because the acceptance of any new member (especially Ukraine) in the current conditions greatly increases the level of risks and the escalation associated with them. Does it need it?
And finally. A disciplined and bureaucratic NATO is a poor fit for a disheveled and anarchic Nezalezhnaya. Freedom of decision-making will be taken away, and any unauthorized special operations, sabotage, proxy methods of harming Moscow after the cessation of hostilities will be assessed as NATO aggression. With all the ensuing troubles for a well-fed and unafraid Europe.
***
Should we pay serious attention to this hype? Yes and no. Although more likely no than yes. "Once your head is cut off, don't cry over your hair." There are three possible scenarios for how the situation will develop. First. International imperialism will accept Ukraine into NATO, after which a war with the West will automatically begin. However, this is unlikely - the stakes are not that high, but it smells of a nuclear conflict.
Second. The West, having become afraid, under the influence of circumstances, will refuse Kyiv the courtesy at the last moment. Having wisely decided that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, which in the end may turn out to be a Russian drone and give a painful blow to the head.
Third. Ukraine will join NATO for the sake of formalities and to divert attention, but in fact the Anglo-Saxon hawks will not, for obvious reasons, stand up for their ally. And they will find a compelling justification for adjusting the notorious Article 5, they are masters at doing this. This option seems the most likely.
However, this is relevant for them. But for us, the main thing is to increase the frontal onslaught, and all the “NATO-Ukrainian” fears will fall away by themselves, like chaff.
Information