Ukraine is in NATO, but not all of it. Why you shouldn’t reject former Secretary General Rasmussen’s idea

Rasmussen’s plan for Ukraine’s NATO membership: What should we think about this?

Discussion began both in Ukraine and abroad about former NATO Secretary General Rasmussen’s plan for a specific format for Ukraine’s NATO membership.

In fact, this is not a plan, but an idea of ​​Rasmussen’s, which The Guardian newspaper’s diplomacy editor Patrick Wintour outlined in his column. The gist of this idea is this: Ukraine should be invited to NATO at the next summit of the North Atlantic Alliance in the United States in 2024 and then admitted to NATO, but Article 5 of the NATO Treaty (on collective defense) applies only to Ukraine. Valid for areas controlled by the government. Rasmussen also gives the example of the Federal Republic of Germany, which was admitted to NATO in 1955 despite Germany being divided. And Article 5 of the NATO Treaty applied only to the territory of the then Federal Republic of Germany.

I would like to point out that Rasmussen is not even the author of this idea. Henry Kissinger stated this in January of this year. Moreover, this idea was repeated by many people in different variations and with different interpretations, sometimes very distorted.

In Ukraine, this idea was met with mostly critical reaction both in the Office of the President of Ukraine and in the expert community. However, Rasmussen’s critics see in his proposal either support for freezing the conflict between Russia and Ukraine or the idea of ​​\u200b\u200b”peace in exchange for giving up occupied territories”, which in fact does not correspond to the former Rasmussen’s position. -NATO Secretary General. Rasmussen’s proposals are not a peace plan, as some believe. Russia will not accept such peace conditions. This is proposed mostly as a precaution against a recurrence of war, and Rasmussen sees this plan as a guarantee of Ukraine’s security in the near future. According to Rasmussen, this is certainly not an exchange of occupied Ukrainian territory for NATO membership; It focuses on the fact that Ukraine should be accepted into NATO as soon as possible, even if all of the occupied territories are not liberated. That’s why he makes an analogy with Germany.

Kissinger and Rasmussen’s idea is creative and unusual. But I will reassure those who criticize the former NATO Secretary General. So far (in the near future) it seems unlikely that this idea will be implemented in practice. On the anniversary of next year’s NATO summit in the United States, we cannot just accept this. The maximum that is possible is an invitation to join NATO followed by an open date. Then every NATO country must consent to our membership in the North Atlantic Alliance. And we know of at least one country that will definitely not give such consent. This is Hungary. At least while Orban is in power. We also need to understand that we will not be accepted into NATO while the current war continues. The position of the United States and most other influential members of the Alliance is to avoid a direct military conflict with Russia in order to prevent a nuclear war.

I don’t rule out that Rasmussen’s opinion will eventually be taken into consideration. And I believe that we should not categorically reject this. The biggest advantage for us is the possibility of joining NATO, even if not all of the occupied Ukrainian territory is liberated. But in the process of implementing this idea, we must fundamentally insist that Ukraine will not recognize the occupied territories as Russia and will reserve the right to liberate these territories under appropriate conditions. If such a situation arises, we can do it ourselves, without NATO’s help.

How will the Kremlin react to this idea? There is a very high probability that Russia’s reaction will be negative. Any form of Ukraine’s membership in NATO is unacceptable to the Putin regime. In fact, one of the main reasons for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was the possibility (even if conditionally theoretical) of Ukraine becoming a member of NATO. The Russian Federation’s territorial claims to “new territories” emerged later, when the main objectives of Russia’s war against Ukraine failed. The Kremlin will not voluntarily give up the captured territories in Ukraine. Just as he did not discuss the Crimea issue, he will not discuss this either. But Russia has given and will continue to give ultimatums to both us and the West regarding Ukraine’s NATO membership.

Many people think that it is no coincidence that the Rasmussen plan arose precisely in the conditions of the current military-political situation. Actually, this idea has not emerged yet. Kissinger proposed his idea in January of this year. Even before the Vilnius NATO summit, Rasmussen stated that there was an analogy between Ukraine and Germany.

Now the search for various compromise options has intensified, because it has become clear that the war has moved to a positional format and continues indefinitely, and the scenarios for its completion may differ. Therefore, the West needs to decide on its strategy towards Ukraine. Rasmussen offers his own version of such a strategy and emphasizes the rapid admission of Ukraine to NATO, which will guarantee us systematic security support in the future.

Rasmussen acts as our ally and supporter of Ukraine’s NATO membership. We may not like the fact that he (like many in the West) does not trust in our complete victory. But given the risk of prolonging trench warfare and the fluctuations in the political situation in the United States and some other Western countries, there may be much more (and even greater) skeptics of this kind in the West tomorrow and the day after tomorrow. . Therefore, Rasmussen recommends not to waste time and take a step towards Ukraine. Otherwise, we may lose (at least partially) the support of the West (or part of the Western countries) and we will not receive either the full liberation of the occupied territories (in the near future) or membership in NATO. Relatively speaking, he offers the bird in the hand (the rapid membership of Ukraine in NATO), without giving up the pie in the sky (liberation of all occupied territories), but postponing this goal for a certain period of time.

We strive for the complete liberation of all occupied regions and their membership in NATO. Today, this is far from an ideal but quick scenario. We do not guarantee either. But we will fight for both goals. And then it all depends on the circumstances. And if there is an opportunity to achieve only one goal first (without giving up the other), then, in my opinion, this should be taken advantage of.

The author expresses his personal opinion, which may not coincide with the position of the editors. The author is responsible for the data published in the “Opinions” section.