For Ukraine, even if just a little, the window of opportunity to receive an invitation to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has opened. Having caught this slight breath of wind and wanting to turn it into a big wind of change, the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy designated the invitation of Ukraine to the Alliance as the first point of his Victory Plan. And what is happening now?
The Kursk operation demonstrated the ephemeral nature of Putin's red lines. And as November 5 approaches and his term in the White House ends, Joe Biden and his entourage began to think about their political legacy. In particular, as ZN.UA sources testify, some administration officials are telling Kyiv about the emerging prospect of receiving an official invitation to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) before January 20, when Biden's presidential term ends.
But for now, everything remains very unstable and uncertain.
It is worth noting that until recently, Kyiv's attempts to receive an invitation were unsuccessful: the members of the Alliance limited themselves to empty words about the irreversibility of Ukraine's membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Political leaders on Bankova Street, where they weave a web of bilateral agreements on security cooperation, understand well that the most serious protection is the presence of an "umbrella" in our country, which is Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.
The main opponents of the official invitation were the United States of America and Germany. At the same time, Washington is well aware that the "ticket" to receive the umbrella of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is by no means the umbrella itself. Although Joe Biden publicly spoke about Ukraine's future in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the reasons why he opposed inviting Ukraine were the following. Firstly, the head of the White House, as a politician formed in the era of perceiving the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) and the Russian Federation as a strong enemy, was afraid of the escalation of the conflict and direct confrontation between the United States of America and the Russian Federation. Secondly, he was afraid that he would not be able to convince those who opposed inviting Ukraine within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Thirdly, Joe Biden believed that Ukraine should step up the fight against corruption.
Finally, some members of the Biden administration considered the prospect of our country's membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as a possible bargaining chip for negotiations on a peaceful settlement between the Russian Federation and Ukraine.
Apart from that, it is worth noting that Joe Biden was not influenced by Kyiv's arguments. The main ones are as follows. Although an invitation is not equal to membership, it would nevertheless be a political signal to Putin that his ultimatums are invalid, and the Russian Federation does not have the right to veto the admission of new members to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). In addition, an invitation to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) during active hostilities would significantly strengthen Ukraine's position in future negotiations with the Russian Federation and would also show China determination of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to fulfill its obligations.
It is not surprising that there is great skepticism and mistrust in Kyiv that Ukraine will be able to receive an invitation. According to ZN.UA, the idea of inviting Ukraine is being discussed in the entourage of the head of the White House and was not initiated by Joe Biden. According to our sources, after Joe Biden's meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the Ukrainian side did not get the impression that the American president was ready to change his position and make a decision to invite Ukraine to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
And if anyone is thinking about officially inviting Ukraine to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as their political legacy, then most likely it is not Joe Biden, but his National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan: the latter is calculating his options for future employment after finishing his work in the current administration. And his CV does not shine with breakthrough achievements in the international arena. Rather, his name is associated with the failures and caution of the White House.
Even if US President Joe Biden decides to extend an invitation, it does not mean that it will be very easily and simply received by Kyiv. It is still necessary to break the resistance of Germany, Hungary, Slovakia and other countries to support this decision. The task is extremely difficult, and it is unlikely that a consensus will be reached by the end of the year, especially since the government of Viktor Orban in Hungary is counting on Trump's victory and does not intend to succumb to pressure from Washington in the last months of the Biden administration.
It is also unknown in what form the United States of America, and its allies would want to present a possible invitation.
It would be optimal for Ukraine to receive not just an invitation, but also a decision to begin accession negotiations, which are a mandatory part of the accession procedure. Although Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said during his presentation of the Victory Plan that "Membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is a matter of the future, not the present," many Ukrainian and Western experts believe that a delay in Ukraine's admission to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) will only encourage Vladimir Putin to continue the war. Another acceptable option: the invitation could be accompanied by Ukraine's gradual admission to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) with a limitation on the application of Article 5 that is, only in its application to the territory controlled by Kyiv.
Today, the formula "Membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in exchange for Ukrainian territories" is already being discussed behind the scenes in the international arena. According to ZN.UA, the Americans are now asking their Ukrainian interlocutors the following question: will an invitation to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) become a catalyst for Ukrainians to sit down at the negotiating table with the Russians? At the same time, the Joe Biden administration is putting strong pressure on political leaders on Bankova Street so that representatives of the Ukrainian government would be the first to come out and publicly declare that they are ready for negotiations with the Russian Federation and for territorial concessions.
But the political leaders on Bankova Street are not going to do this. Kyiv's position is as follows: we need membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), we need security guarantees and a clearly defined demarcation line, while Ukraine does not recognize the occupied territories as Russian.
Why are political leaders in Washington and many other capitals of countries that are members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) confident that Putin will agree to a deal of “Membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in exchange for territory”? And will he agree to peace talks with Ukraine in the near future?
Russian Senator Alexei Pushkov notes that “any formula for including Ukraine in the Alliance directly depends on the cessation of military action. However, it must be made clear that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) cannot solve this problem without the Russian Federation. And Russia allows negotiations, but with the exclusion of Ukraine’s membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Here the positions of the Russian Federation and the West are incompatible… For this reason, political leaders in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) will probably do nothing for now except discuss this issue.”
Putin, however, is focused on continuing military action and achieving his goals. According to his worldview, he will win the war in the future, and the situation inside Russia and on the international arena will contribute to his plans to destroy Ukraine. Alexandra Prokopenko, an expert at the Carnegie Berlin Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies, writes that “Putin’s economy is capable of adaptation and can survive for several more years. This is an unpleasant truth for politicians in Europe and the United States of America."
If events follow the worst-case scenario and Ukraine continues to wait at the threshold of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), then Kyiv needs to look for other ways to protect itself in the future from a new attack by the Russian Federation. One of these ways to protect us from a new attack by Russia in the future could be security cooperation agreements aimed at implementing the "porcupine strategy" and only increasing the cost of invasion for the aggressor. At the same time, the implementation of these agreements depends on the political will of our partners and their strategic vision of the future of Ukraine and the Russian Federation. Finally, much about the implementation of these agreements also depends on the military, financial and human resources of Ukraine itself.
But it is worth noting that there are already enough reasons to be skeptical about the readiness of our Western partners for long-term and consistent political, financial and military support for Ukraine.
As Finnish Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen noted in an interview with the Financial Times, "The West is increasingly tired of the war in Ukraine and hopes for some form of resolution to the conflict." This means that financial and military support for Ukraine from the West is becoming increasingly unstable. Here we can mention France, which at the beginning of the year recorded in the agreement on cooperation in the field of security the obligation to allocate 3 billion euros to Ukraine this year, stated that due to the budget deficit it will allocate more than 2 billion. That is why calls are being heard in our country and beyond its borders to return to the discussion of Ukraine's accession to various formats that strengthen our country's defense capability and increase the obligations of partners to support it in the event of new aggression by the Russian Federation.
One of the formats is the granting by the United States of America of Ukraine the status of a major non-NATO ally (MNNA). This status is not an alternative to membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), but it will allow Washington to supply us with a number of effective weapons. This format may become even more relevant if, in the event of his return to the White House, Donald Trump opposes Ukraine's membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Another format is joining the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF), where Great Britain plays a leading role.
Finally, if Kyiv does not receive an invitation, then our Western partners from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) can place their contingents or non-nuclear arsenal in Ukraine as deterrent measures against Russian attacks on the territory of Ukraine. (The third point of the President's Victory Plan provides for this option.) According to The Times, Great Britain is considering sending its military instructors to Ukraine to train new recruits. The transfer of scientists to the territory of Ukraine will be not only an important step for improving logistics, but also a powerful military-political signal for the Russian Federation and other countries. This can also lead to the development of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) infrastructure on Ukrainian territory.
However, as in the case of the long-awaited official invitation to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), in its desire to join new formats in the security sphere, Ukraine may face a lack of political will on the part of its Western partners, "fatigue" from the Russian-Ukrainian war, and simply short-sightedness.