The security guarantees from Ukraine will become a “self-integration” into the Alliance
The course of the Russian-Ukrainian war logically led many people both within the country and in the West to a critical realization that Ukraine’s membership in NATO is a mandatory element of Ukrainian victory in the war and, at the same time, a strategic defeat of the Russian Federation. Without it, the military conflict not only risks escalating into a protracted war lasting decades but also drawing a large number of other countries into a global military confrontation.
However, the past few weeks have been rich in various proposals that replace Ukraine’s NATO membership with half-measures and insignificant gestures. Most of them not only fail to meet the demands of the time but also raise suspicions that Ukrainian membership in the Alliance remains a bargaining chip in major negotiations at the global table.
As the Vilnius Summit approaches, the discussion on Ukraine’s membership has brought to the surface the self-imposed “red lines” of many Western governments. Behind the fog of political rhetoric, it can be seen that they essentially amount to a deadlock position according to which Ukraine cannot acquire membership as long as the threat of aggression from Russia persists. Politicians who hold such a cynical view of Ukrainian membership prospects are well aware that this threat will not disappear after the end of the war or even after Putin’s rule, as the Russian bear is perpetually hungry. They also understand the detrimental risks of their position for Ukraine. No generous promises of support through higher-level mechanisms can hide the fact that the collective West does not consider our war as its own, otherwise bloc soldiers would stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukrainians on the battlefield.
Therefore, in order to accelerate Ukraine’s membership and, more importantly, to obtain an invitation urgently while the war is ongoing, unprecedented steps are needed. In 2022, Ukraine demonstrated heroic resistance on the battlefield, surpassing all expectations. Now, unexpected strong actions are required on the diplomatic front.
The Eastern shield of Europe
Ukraine must formalize its moral leadership as the primary defender of freedom against Moscow’s audacious aggressive plans and the countries that support its anti-Western policies. We are witnessing the emergence of a new axis of destructive power in the world, ready to pursue hegemony through the ruins of humanity’s achievements since the Second World War, undermining the construction of an international order based on rules and the promotion of universal human rights and democracy.
See also: The end of the war. The future and beyond
The time has come to solidify, through political and legal means, Ukraine’s role as the eastern pillar of defense for Europe against the greatest threat to its peaceful future.
One of such steps could be the Ukrainian government publicly releasing a declaration in which it unilaterally proclaims that in the event of an illegal armed attack by the Russian Federation on our closest partner countries, Ukraine will consider this attack as an act of aggression against itself and, upon a corresponding request, will provide assistance to the victim of the attack.
The initiative of Kyiv taking on a unilateral commitment similar to Article 5 of the Washington Treaty will present Western skeptics of Ukraine’s NATO membership with an unprecedented fact, where Alliance countries will receive a security shield from a country that has a unique experience of direct confrontation with the enemy. From various perspectives, Ukrainian security guarantees will provide additional reassurance to the Eastern flank countries of NATO in their ability to counter aggression from Russia.
Threat to NATO’s Eastern flank
Contrary to popular stereotypes, NATO has its own vulnerabilities. Since its establishment, the defense alliance has repeatedly adapted its strategic concept of defense and deterrence to maintain the ability to respond to new challenges while minimizing vulnerabilities. These changes have reflected a constant search for a balance between relying on strategic deterrence through the strength of US nuclear weapons and counting on the ability to respond with conventional means to conventional or hybrid attacks on the territory of member countries, particularly the Eastern flank of NATO. Taking into account the nuclear parity with Russia and the risks of a global catastrophe that could result from a nuclear war, NATO has long abandoned the concept of massive retaliatory strike in the event of a non-nuclear threat and therefore would respond with conventional means.
Therefore, it is clear that the Alliance’s ability to defend member countries on the Eastern flank from a large-scale, rapid, limited, or hybrid attack by Russia has been and remains a complex challenge. Neither nuclear deterrence nor the existing non-nuclear means on the territory of member states can fully guarantee effective defense against aggression from Russia.
It is quite possible that Putin’s greatest mistake in his ominous strategy of restoring Russia’s global dominance was abandoning plans to attack Estonia in 2014 (and instead striking Ukraine).
See also: United helplessness: Why international organizations do not work
Let’s recall how a year ago, Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas sounded the alarm publicly, warning that in the event of a Russian attack, her country and nation could be wiped off the map. She relentlessly criticized the weakness of NATO’s defense plan, which allowed for the possibility of a months-long occupation of the captured territories by Russian troops, and she cautioned that the existing military forces of the bloc in the region would be annihilated by the superior forces of the aggressor.
Since Kaja Kallas’ statements, NATO has adopted a series of decisions to enhance its military capabilities to repel a potential attack on the Eastern flank country. However, the actions of Alliance countries have also revealed their limited ability to wage a war of the same intensity as the one raging on Ukrainian soil. We have repeatedly heard reports of inspections revealing insufficient material and human reserves in their armies, as defense establishments, especially those of European NATO members, have been chronically and irresponsibly underfunded.
Perhaps the greatest vulnerability of NATO is its limited capacity for decisive action. The clearly weak and chronically delayed response to Russia’s bold and brutal aggression against Ukraine has demonstrated how much the bloc’s actions are driven by a position of avoiding escalation at all costs.
The explanation for this indecisiveness is clearly not solely due to Ukraine’s non-membership in NATO. Although one can now say that Western policymakers hide behind NATO as a justification that relieves them of the obligation to confront Russia, it was not the absence of Ukraine’s NATO membership that hindered the sale of weapons, the timely implementation of meaningful sanctions against Russia, and other necessary actions during the period from 2014 to 2021.
The hesitant behavior of the Alliance cannot fail to concern the countries of the Eastern flank, regardless of any assurances from Washington. If one can ignore the genocidal nature of Russia’s war against Ukraine, tolerate nuclear terrorism, and leave targeted creation of technological catastrophes unanswered, then where does the confidence come from that, in the moment of truth, they will not sacrifice, let’s say, the interests of the territorial integrity of “small” NATO allies for the sake of “avoiding a global nuclear Holocaust”? That is why it can be assumed that, especially in the capitals of the Baltic countries and Warsaw, the Ukrainian initiative will be perceived as a powerful guarantee that will urge decisive action from the entire Alliance.
Leadership of courage
The security guarantees from Ukraine can be loosely referred to as “self-integration” into NATO. Ukraine can convince the West that membership is not just an attempt to seek shelter under the protection umbrella at the expense of increasing risks for Western societies but also a readiness to fight for them. Joining NATO means not only receiving protection from the international bloc but also the obligation for Ukrainians to defend allies. If we want citizens of NATO countries to be willing to make sacrifices for the defense of Ukraine, we must demonstrate Ukraine’s readiness to fight for their security as well.
Of course, many rightfully argue that Ukrainians are already shedding blood to defend the world from the menacing Russian state. However, in the West, unfortunately, there are too many who prefer to pretend that it is just an ordinary territorial conflict without far-reaching consequences for their own security. The West does not perceive Putin as a 21st-century Hitler and is not prepared to confront his aggression as a fight against modern-day Nazism.
As a result, the majority of people in the West perceive the question of Ukraine’s membership in a one-dimensional framework, where the West is seen as the provider of security, burdened with costs and unnecessary high risks, while Ukraine is seen solely as a beneficiary.
This paradigm, however, distorts the realities of international security. Ukraine, through epic heroism and tragic suffering, has become the shield for humanity against the greatest threat since World War II — the aggressive, revanchist, and Russian regime. Ukraine’s contribution to global security is nothing short of monumental: Ukrainians, with their own blood and sweat, stand up against the direct challenge that Moscow has thrown at the rules-based international order. The West plays a leading role in this order, and it is also its primary beneficiary. The economic prosperity of the West over the past eight decades would have been impossible without security and stability. It is in NATO’s Strategic Concept where Russia is identified as “the most significant direct threat to the security, peace, and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area.”
We need to convey to Western societies that Ukraine’s military prowess and determination to fight against a superior enemy with nuclear weapons would be a tremendous asset to NATO. Security guarantees from Ukraine would emphasize that we are fighting not only for our own existence and freedom but also for universal principles, peace, and the security of other nations. This would improve bilateral relations with NATO countries as a whole.
A strong diplomatic gesture from Kyiv would demonstrably solidify Ukraine’s leadership role in the region. When considering the geography of Ukrainian security guarantees, the entire Eastern flank of NATO should be taken into account: Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary, and Romania. It is entirely justified to include Moldova in this list as well since Ukraine’s neighbor’s pro-Western course can be maintained only under conditions of security, and only the Western orientation of Chisinau provides us with additional security.
We also believe that the Ukrainian initiative will be an expression of gratitude towards the societies of those countries that support Ukraine wholeheartedly, primarily through their active political stance, which encourages changes within NATO. They understand well that Ukraine’s membership will have a significant impact on ensuring long-term security stability on the European continent. Therefore, the “Kyiv security guarantees” will provide additional weighty arguments to partners who advocate the urgent invitation of Ukraine to join the Alliance.
Ambitions need to be supported by bold actions. At one time, the unilateral cancellation of visas by Kyiv for citizens of Western countries opened up Ukraine to them and significantly contributed to our further European integration. Now, unilateral security guarantees from Ukraine can help open the doors to NATO even before the war is over. Currently, these doors are closed due to the fear of Western leaders, and only the courage to accomplish the impossible can become our key to unlocking them.
Originally posted by Ariana Gits and Roman Son on Zn.ua. Translated and edited by the UaPosition – Ukrainian news and analytics website
See also: The Russian war against Ukraine is also a colonization project. Interview with Philippe Sands
