Regarding the NATO Summit that took place in Vilnius, there has been enough written. Some continue to label it as almost a 'failure' for Ukraine in the context of high expectations, as Kyiv did not receive a definitive invitation to join the Alliance. Others argue that the summit was more than successful for Ukraine in terms of guarantees of further assistance from allies, the establishment of the Ukraine-NATO Council, and a clear signal that membership will eventually be granted.
The specific position of the United States (along with Germany) regarding the prospects of Ukraine's 'tomorrow' accession to NATO has raised considerable astonishment. The US is the world's largest economy, Ukraine's key ally in the war against russia, and russia's primary adversary (as russians themselves believe), yet there is such uncertainty regarding Ukraine's membership. There is no invitation date or time frame for accession. It seems like everything is there, but there is no "when". To understand why this is the case, Yuri Vanetik, a lawyer, political strategist, and member of the Board of Directors of the international human rights agency WEST SUPPORT (USA), has made an effort to analyse the situation for Mind.
It is important to explain the sentiments of ordinary people and politicians in the United States regarding Ukraine's accession to the Alliance. I believe that much will become clear by examining what already raises many questions and discussions among Ukrainians themselves and citizens of other countries who sympathise with them.
One approach is that the United States needs russia to remain in its current form because there is concern that it could disintegrate after the 'wagner uprising'. This topic is highly debated in the US. Many Americans believe that it is better to have one russia (regardless of its post-putin state) rather than having five or six ambiguous fragments of greater russia, some of which could take on an ultra-Islamic direction; that there will be numerous unclear nuclear buttons in different states, and so on.
These discussions primarily take place among Republicans. Currently, it is being digested as an ongoing dialogue in society as well as among politicians in the context of upcoming elections.
Simultaneously, there is a movement whose representatives argue that Ukraine should join NATO sooner as it has earned it. It is understood that certain actions cannot be taken during a war, but these individuals are convinced that NATO should have a short-term plan for Ukraine to join the Alliance as soon as possible. This is a popular topic of discussion among both Democrats and Republicans, as well as among citizens who are not directly involved in politics.
To what extent (theoretically) was Ukraine's accession to NATO realistic this year?
I haven't heard about an accelerated option for Ukraine's NATO membership among US politicians. I can't say that I've had discussions specifically on this topic with many people, but I do know a few individuals who are deeply engaged in this matter. For instance, Congressman Brad Sherman, a member of the US House of Representatives who serves on the international committee of the US Congress. I spoke with representatives from his headquarters a few hours ago, and they do not support such a position. Therefore, I would say that the topic of Ukraine's accelerated accession to NATO is more popular among ordinary Americans than it is seriously discussed by US politicians.
In the past, we raised the issue that despite support, Ukraine is not yet an adequate candidate for NATO membership. Now, that topic has faded away, and it is no longer discussed in those terms. However, when such a topic arises, there is more criticism directed, I would say, towards NATO itself.
These are the conflicting vectors we have. It is likely that the US could use this topic as a card for some kind of negotiation. But in the US, there is a psychological fear of a nuclear threat from russia, which could become quite real due to the current madness of the russian government. And there is concern about the emergence of some unpredictable countries after the hypothetical collapse of russia, which could start conflicting with one another while having nuclear buttons at their disposal. This unpredictability, to some extent, is frightening.
Therefore, if both Republicans and Democrats press for some kind of peace or cessation of the hot stage of the war, perhaps the NATO issue may become a factor in preserving russia's face. Maybe.
Let's not forget that NATO is a military-political organisation. In order to meet the criteria and be on par with other member countries of the Alliance, Ukraine must not only have highly skilled and courageous military personnel.
In this regard, Ukraine is doing well. Ukraine must have a clean judicial system, combat corruption, and not condone or turn a blind eye to various abuses by officials. If anyone thinks that the United States is not sufficiently aware of what is happening in Ukraine's life and politics, they are mistaken.
Perhaps most Americans won't name Ukrainian politicians off the bat, but our people have certainly heard about the bribery of Ukrainian politicians, abuses with humanitarian aid, how MPs offer people of conscription age to 'arrange' their departure abroad for dollars, how someone bribes someone else, and the latter is bribed with great pleasure. And so on. We know about it, and many media outlets write about it. Therefore, without bringing Ukraine up to the level of a civilised country, NATO membership will be beyond its reach, so to speak. This is crucial for NATO itself and its criteria for accepting new members.
One thing is ideological solidarity with Ukraine from civilised countries worldwide in the fight against evil, and another is the presence of high standards and rules within Ukraine itself. A corrupt and unstable Ukraine is not needed by either the EU or NATO. Ukraine needs to find itself in terms of its socio-moral character, so to speak.
Currently, much is overshadowed by military actions and the military situation in Ukraine. At the same time, US Republicans continue to talk about their willingness to continue providing assistance but are reluctant to give Kyiv a 'blank cheque'. Irresponsible financing of anything will not work. Accountability and responsibility are needed, along with a business-like approach rather than purely ideological. This is the position of the Republicans. I give at least a 50% chance that the next US president could be a Republican. Ukraine should take this into account.
And NATO is not just a military alliance. It's about democracy, freedom of speech, human rights, and the rule of law. Here, Ukraine still has a lot of work to do.