What are we doing with Ukraine? The NATO countries still have four weeks to come up with an answer to the repeated and urgent Ukrainian request to quickly join the alliance. It has been discussed for months and at a NATO summit in Lithuania at the beginning of July there should be an answer.
So far, say diplomats, there is no consensus. Meanwhile, the debate is getting more vicious. Former NATO boss Anders Fogh Rasmussen, now an adviser to Ukraine, even suggested that Eastern European countries would be willing to fight in Ukraine themselves if necessary if the Kyiv alliance does not make a serious offer. Those NATO countries won’t act on that threat any time soon, but it’s illustrative of the pressure behind the scenes.
When Ukraine started talking about membership shortly after the Russian invasion, the first reflex at headquarters was: don’t talk about it. It is not possible, we are not putting it on the agenda, the disagreement is too great and division only plays into Putin’s hands. Moreover, discussing membership would only distract from the more pressing task of providing Kyiv with military and political support to defend itself against Russia.
Read also: Europe continues to press ahead, now with the delivery of F-16s
However, a vociferous minority from mainly Eastern European countries did not allow themselves to be muzzled, nor did the tireless and eloquent Ukrainian President Zelensky. Diplomats now hope that an agreement has been reached before the summit in the Lithuanian capital Vilnius. When Zelensky makes a moral appeal in a meeting, it’s hard not to grant his wishes. The breakthrough on training Ukrainian F16 pilots at the G7 summit in Hiroshima last month is said to have come about thanks to Zelensky’s presence.
In the diplomatic debate about the future status of Ukraine, Germany and the United States are currently the most reluctant, according to Brussels.
Mutual solidarity
Initially, the most obvious argument against accession was that NATO cannot formally welcome a country at war because then the alliance itself would be at war. After all, the core of NATO is mutual solidarity: an attack on one is an attack on all. Membership is therefore only possible after the war.
The second argument against Ukraine’s accession is the risk that Russia would see it as an unforgivable provocation. For years Russia has protested against Ukraine’s rapprochement with the West. A close relationship with the EU was up to that point, but NATO membership is said to see Russia as a cause for war.
How do you tie Ukraine firmly to NATO without provoking Moscow and going to war itself?
Therefore, intermediate solutions are now being sought. How do you bind Ukraine firmly to NATO without provoking Moscow and going to war itself? In addition, NATO realizes that Zelensky will soon have to come up with something because of his own political position.
The ‘offer’ to Ukraine is likely to contain a number of elements. There will be a NATO-Ukraine Council, a formal consultative body where Ukraine can consult on an equal footing with NATO. That is also nice symbolism: previously consultations with Russia took place via such a council. At present, NATO and Ukraine still meet in a committee that is only intended for consultations. A Council can also take decisions in the future.
Weapons deliveries
Arms shipments to Kyiv have been bypassing NATO since last year, through the US-led Ramstein Council, to which dozens of countries are members. Non-lethal support – such as protection against drones, assistance with cyber defenses or medical assistance – can be provided via NATO. To this end, there must be a fixed Ukraine fund of 500 million euros per year, which will be filled by all NATO countries in proportion to their GNP. Contribution is still voluntary. The Netherlands is also at the forefront of this, and already contributed 100 million euros last year.
In addition, Ukraine must receive support to switch from Soviet equipment to NATO equipment and to make its armed forces into a NATO armed force that is in line with the other countries.
Read also: NATO reiterates: Ukraine is welcome as a member
The discussion about membership is still moving between two poles. In 2008 Ukraine was promised membership at a summit in Bucharest, but without a date attached. Cautious NATO countries would simply repeat that promise in Vilnius. The Eastern Europeans want a hard promise, complete with dates and clearly defined intermediate steps. A compromise is conceivable in which Bucharest’s invitation is repeated in more eloquent words, without becoming too specific.
For example, Secretary-General Jens Stoltengberg used the phrase at a press conference on Wednesday: “Ukraine’s future lies in NATO.”
Eastern European countries want a hard promise, with data and clear steps
The most thorny negotiating point is the security guarantees that Ukraine should receive to bridge the time to NATO membership. “Ukraine must be given enough weapons and systems to defend itself in the longer term,” Stoltenberg said of the purpose of the guarantees. Russia must be prevented from regrouping after a ceasefire and attacking again in the long term.
The consultations about those guarantees – the Americans deliberately refer to ‘assurances’ and not about ‘guarantees’ – take place between major NATO countries. The Quad – US, France, UK and Germany – is working on a joint political statement, which will include bilateral commitments. It is therefore not about commitments on behalf of the alliance. It is not yet clear how those commitments will play out. Presumably other countries, such as the Netherlands, will also be given the opportunity to place bilateral commitments to Ukraine under such an umbrella.
Read also: The British defense minister spoke about Ukraine in Amsterdam: ‘I think like-minded allies will make a kind of security pact’
British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace said in Amsterdam on Tuesday that the United Kingdom is exploring various options. He still had to talk to his prime minister about it, he said. Wallace is running for Stoltenberg’s succession.
Security guarantees
The idea of security guarantees for Ukraine was developed last year by Rasmussen in consultation with Zelensky’s chief of staff Andrej Jermak. Rasmussen said earlier that Ukraine must receive a written guarantee that intelligence will be shared, that military training will continue, that more ammunition will be produced and that the supply of weapons must be maintained.
Ukraine is seeking to join NATO in order to gain definitive support in the confrontation with Russia. But there is another argument for accession. The now 100-year-old former American diplomat Henry Kissinger, always good for a cross view, argues that membership is not only necessary for the future security of Ukraine, but also for the security of Europe.
It’s about now, Kissinger argued recently in a conversation with The Economists, to end the war without immediately laying the foundations for a new conflict. Kissinger fears that Russia will have to give up a lot of occupied territory, but Crimea will be retained. Then an unsafe situation arises.
“We have now made Ukraine the best armed country in Europe with a leadership that has the least strategic experience. If the war ends with Russia losing a lot but keeping Sevastopol, we will have a disgruntled Russia, but also a disgruntled Ukraine – in other words, a balance of discontent. So for Europe’s security it is better to have Ukraine in NATO, where it cannot make national decisions on territorial claims.
“What the Europeans are saying now is insanely dangerous. The Europeans say: ‘we don’t want them in NATO because they pose too much of a risk. That’s why we arm them like crazy and give them the most advanced weaponry.” How should that work? […] The outcome must be that Ukraine is protected by Europe and does not become a solitary state that only stands up for itself.”
According to the guru of diplomacy, there is only one way to lasting peace. The West has to jump over his shadow twice. Ukraine must join NATO, to protect it, but also to contain it. In addition, Europe must ultimately seek rapprochement with Russia in order to stabilize the eastern flank.
Read also about Finland’s accession: NATO is gaining a country that pampers its armed forces with money and enthusiasm
A version of this article also appeared in the June 15, 2023 newspaper.