Despite intense campaigning and pleading by
Volodymyr Zelensky, the Vilnius summit did not give any timetable for Ukraine’s path
towards its membership. NATO acknowledged in paragraph 11 of its official
communique that “Ukraine’s future is in
NATO”. For obvious reasons, the absence
of clearly defined timelines and conditions for Ukraine's accession was
projected by the media as a personal setback for Zelesnky, who had harbored
hopes that the NATO summit would culminate in a concrete invitation for Ukraine
to join the alliance.
اضافة اعلان
Ostensibly, the lack of such an invitation reflects the
“cautious” approach taken by NATO member states, who remain wary of “provoking”
further tensions with Russia, but the fact is that NATO has given much more
than what Zelensky had expected from the Vilnius summit: unwavering pledges for
extremely generous financial and military assistance to Kyiv as well as the
creation of the
NATO-Ukraine Council.
The Vilnius Summit has underscored the undeniable reality
that Ukraine's position in the European arena is central at the moment.
President Zelensky may not have received the invitation, but the summit yielded
a series of substantial victories for Ukraine. Notably, Ukraine has secured a
commitment of military and
economic aid from the G7, while also embarking on
F-16 fighter jet training in collaboration with 11 partner countries. Germany,
too, has pledged an impressive 700 million euros in additional military
assistance. Most significantly, the formal affirmation that "Ukraine's
future is in NATO" solidifies the nature of the partnership between
Ukraine and the alliance. Similarly, certain NATO members are determined to
manifest its significance in alternative manners, such as through the
establishment of enduring security guarantees, reminiscent of the United
States' longstanding
alliance with Israel, which receives $3.8 billion in
annual military aid from Washington. President Biden expressed willingness for
such an arrangement, conditional upon the existence of a ceasefire and a peace
accord. Moreover, reports indicate that the United Kingdom, France, and
Germany are also contemplating similar assurances.
The NATO-Ukraine Council
At the same time, the
Vilnius summit has yielded another
significant development in relation to the Ukraine conflict: the inception of
the NATO-Ukraine Council. In this major move, Kyiv and the alliance's 31
members will have a dedicated platform for consultation and joint
decision-making. Beyond its consultative function, the council will also serve
as a vital mechanism for crisis management, enabling
Kyiv to summon urgent meetings when necessary. Moreover, the stated objective of this council is to
bolster the extent of Ukraine's collaboration with the alliance, enhancing a
deeper and closer partnership.
However, the establishment of the NATO-Ukraine Council,
apparently aimed at enhancing channels of communication and consultations with
Ukraine, may inversely exacerbate tensions in the region. It is being viewed by
Moscow as an indirect attempt to grant
Ukraine a symbolic "seat at the
table" without conferring formal membership status. Formation of this
council seems to be a calculated maneuver to further isolate Russia and expand
NATO's influence. While the NATO-Ukraine Council may be seen as a symbolic
gesture of support for Ukraine's aspirations, its implications and potential
consequences for regional stability cannot be overlooked. But critics allege
that, with the establishment of the NATO-Ukraine Council as the latest
manifestation of its long-term strategic intent, the trans-Atlantic alliance
has once again revealed the organization's expansionist agenda eastwards, which
may further aggravate the tensions in Europe. The
crisis meetings that Kyiv can
convene through this council are considered to be a thinly veiled attempt to
further
stoke tensions and provoke Russia.
Key Dilemmas
In 2008, NATO indicated that Ukraine could potentially join
the alliance at a later time, but when Ukraine requested "fast-track"
membership in September 2022, it was declined. The reluctance to expedite
Ukraine's entry into NATO is rooted in the potential implications of Article 5
in NATO's charter, which mandates that an attack on one member would trigger a
collective defense response from all others. If Ukraine were to join amid the
ongoing conflict with Russia, it would necessitate all
NATO member countries declaring war on Russia. During the Vilnius summit, NATO reiterated that
Ukraine would be invited to join as a member "when allies agree and
conditions are met," indicating that the decision is contingent upon
consensus and fulfillment of specific criteria. However, on this matter, NATO
has again given a big concession by allowing Ukraine to bypass the
Membership Action Plan, a step in the entry process.
President Zelensky also knows very well that Ukraine cannot
join NATO while engaged in a conflict with Russia, but he has strategically
used this dilemma as a bargaining chip to exert pressure on NATO leadership,
seeking additional concessions and favors. By leveraging the unresolved
question of NATO membership, Zelensky aims to secure advantageous outcomes
beyond the realm of immediate membership. The Vilnius Summit, at its core,
revolved around the issue of Russia and the imperative of preventing it from
posing an enduring security challenge to Europe. This gathering remained
focused on strategies to curtail Russia's influence in the backyard of Europe –
particularly in the backdrop of the Wagner episode.
Another key dilemma facing NATO in the foreseeable future
lies in determining the circumstances under which Ukraine could potentially
join the alliance—a decision that hinges not only on when the war concludes but
also on how it concludes. Determining when this war has truly ended poses a
considerable challenge to the
NATO leadership. Complicating matters further is
the fact that Putin may have a serious interest in perpetuating a
"frozen" conflict with Ukraine, viewing the nation-state as
fictitious and leveraging it for political legitimacy.
This conundrum raises important questions about the nature
of the conflict and its potential resolution. Can a definitive end be achieved
when one party has a strategic stake in a prolonged and unresolved
confrontation? Moreover, the conflict's intricacies intertwine with complex
geopolitical dynamics, historical narratives, and competing national
identities.
Ukraine's path to NATO membership is grappled with the complexities
of the war's conclusion and the motives driving Russia's actions. Thus far,
NATO has discussed the end of the war as a clean and definitive moment, but
such a scenario is far from guaranteed. If the end of the conflict resembles a
"frozen conflict" akin to the situation between Moldova and the
Russian-backed separatist region of Transnistria, where Moscow retains the
ability to manipulate tensions at will, Ukraine's aspirations for NATO
membership could face significant hurdles for an extended period, possibly
spanning years or even decades.
Read more Opinion and Analysis
Jordan News
