.png)
Another Failure of Security Measures in the Region of Eastern Europe
Editor’s Note: Millions of Ukrainians hoped that the West would finally get out of the vicious circle of its policy of appeasing the aggressor and would not make another mistake. However, everything happened exactly the opposite, and the decision not to start the procedure for Ukraine's accession into NATO will cost both the Alliance and Ukrainians dearly.
The results of the current NATO summit demonstrated, without exaggeration, yet another failure of Western policy. If we go back to the past, we can recall several summits or agreements that were supposed to give clarity to the future of Ukraine.
The 1994 Budapest Memorandum was signed after Ukraine inherited one of the world's largest arsenals of nuclear weapons – 1900 nuclear warheads, which were in stock as of 1990. The West considered this a security threat, and the main goal of the U.S. President was to concentrate all these nuclear weapons in the hands of one entity, Russia. As a result, on December 4, 1994, Ukraine, together with the United States, Great Britain, and Russia, signed the Budapest Memorandum, where Ukraine undertook to transfer its entire nuclear arsenal to Russia.
In contrast, Washington, London, and Moscow pledged to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine and assured Kyiv of security support in the event of armed aggression.[1] This treaty was supposed to contribute to security in the region, but Russia first violated the Budapest Memorandum in 2014 by annexing Crimea in Ukraine and, in 2022, carried out a full-scale invasion.
Former U.S. President Bill Clinton stated in a recent public discussion at a Jewish cultural and community center in New York, "I knew from that day forward, it was just a matter of time." Speaking of the 2011 World Economic Forum in Davos where, Clinton continued, "Putin told me in 2011, three years before he took Crimea, that he did not agree with the agreement I made with Boris Yeltsin, that they would respect Ukraine's territory if they gave up their nuclear weapons."[2]
A similar opinion was previously voiced by former NATO Secretary General George Robertson. In particular, speaking about the Budapest memorandum, he stated, "Don't these promises to look good in the light of the carnage we see on our TVs every night?," emphasizing that the example of Ukraine shows well that relying on nuclear deterrence and abandoning nuclear potential is unjustified.[3]
In 2008, Bucharest hosted a summit of the North Atlantic Alliance, which considered the issue of NATO expansion at the expense of Ukraine and Georgia. The United States and all countries of Eastern Europe supported this decision, but at the initiative of Merkel and Sarkozy, this decision was blocked, and Ukraine never received the Membership Action Plan. [4]
If we go back to 2014, after the "Maidan," an unprecedented event took place in the history of modern European security: one European country annexed part of the territory to another. When Putin illegally seized and incorporated Crimea into Russia, he thereby violated the Budapest Memorandum and the UN Charter. However, this policy of appeasing the aggressor ended in the bloodiest war in Europe since the WWII.
It is clear to everyone that if the entire nuclear arsenal had not been taken away from Ukraine in 1994, there would not have been a war with Russia. If Ukraine had been admitted to NATO in 2008, there would be no war with Russia now. If, in 2014, the paths had given a tough response for the annexation of Crimea and started arming Ukraine, there would be no war with Russia now.
Ukraine did not get the desired result at the NATO summit, and the procedure for Kyiv's entry into the Alliance did not begin. Instead, the West decided that it would help Ukraine based on the "Israeli model" within the framework of bilateral agreements in the field of military assistance. There was no request from Ukraine that the country should now become a member of NATO.[5] It was only about the beginning of the entry procedure itself. If this procedure were launched, then it would be about compliance with standards, the level of anti-corruption policy, and so on.
In Vilnius, the advanced countries of the "West" are making another mistake on the issue of the security of Eastern Europe.[6] An interesting fact is that the entire Bucharest Nine, including Hungary, unanimously supports Ukraine's entry into the Alliance, and countries that are far from Russia and do not have any threats to their own security, such as the United States and Germany, blocked Ukraine's entry.[7]
The failure of the summit in Vilnius is that Ukraine was legally left in a "gray zone" with promises of entry without any specifics. The security of Eastern Europe is not a matter for Ukraine. It is a question of the united Western countries. No NATO country has done as much for Europe's security as Ukraine has. Ukraine was able to protect Europe when many media representatives and experts gave 96 hours to survive. The actions of NATO leaders worked for decades to appease Putin, but this is what led to the greatest war in Europe since World War II. The Russian dictator perceived this as a weakness and, each time, only expanded the scope of what was permitted.
A logical question is often raised in discussions: why did Russia not attack the Baltic countries? Because they have been members of NATO since 2004. The North Atlantic Alliance provided security for these countries, and the imperial ambitions faded. At the summit in Vilnius, it was clear that the West had the opportunity to prevent all subsequent military clashes between Ukraine and Russia. Only joining NATO can prevent potential wars and increase the involvement of Western countries in helping Ukraine.
For a year and a half of a full-scale war with Russia, Ukraine has proven that the Russian army is not the second in the world and is incapable of opposing NATO on an equal footing. NATO countries have transferred vast amounts of aid to Ukraine, which was enough to stop Russia as the biggest threat to the Alliance. But what would happen if Ukraine, being a member of NATO, had the opportunity to use the entire arsenal of weapons?
If these NATO weapons were enough to disable the entire regular Russian army, then how can the North Atlantic Alliance continue to look at the opinion of Russia? This policy should not be characteristic of the largest military alliance in the world. Russia can pose a threat only when it divides the countries of Europe, preventing it from acting as a united front. So far, it has ensured that NATO defines Ukraine not as a single sphere of collective security but as a territory where Putin can invade when he pleases.
That is why, at the summit in Vilnius, Ukraine, only wanted to start the procedure for joining the alliance, having received assurances that we are no longer a gray zone. Even former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who previously believed that a ceasefire was the only way out, believes that now there should be no more neutral zones between NATO and Russia and says that the Russian invasion shows that it no longer makes sense to keep Ukraine from NATO membership. Speaking virtually at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Kissinger said that NATO membership for Ukraine would be a "suitable outcome."[8]
What Ukraine needs in this case is specifics. In fact, the country that has made the most significant contribution to the security of Europe wants NATO to reconsider its attitude.
______________________________________________________________
Bibliography
“Agenda: Former NATO Boss Lord Robertson.” heraldscotland.com, February 18, 2015. https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/13202257.agenda-former-nato-boss-lord-robertson/.
“NATO Eastern Flank Members Want to Boost Support for Ukraine at Alliance Summit in July.” AP News, June 6, 2023. https://apnews.com/article/nato-bucharest-nine-vilnius-summit-ukraine-ec401d10117a909789a792cb53815b6d.
Borger, Julian. “We Knew in 2011 Putin Would Attack Ukraine, Says Bill Clinton.” The Guardian, May 5, 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/05/we-knew-putin-would-attack-ukraine-back-in-2011-says-bill-clinton.
Boyer, Spencer P., and Caroline Wadhams. “The NATO Summit in Bucharest.” Center for American Progress, April 2, 2008. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-nato-summit-in-bucharest/.
Brennan, David. “How Ukraine’s NATO Bid Went off the Rails in Vilnius.” newsweek.com, July 23, 2023. https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-nato-bid-failed-vilnius-german-pressure-1814568.
Cohen, Eliot A. “The ‘Israel Model’ Won’t Work for Ukraine.” The Atlantic, July 13, 2023. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/07/israel-model-ukraine/674683/.
Kimball, Daryl G. “Ukraine, Nuclear Weapons, and Security Assurances at a Glance.” armscontrol.org, February 2022. https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Ukraine-Nuclear-Weapons.
Martin, Peter. “Henry Kissinger Sheds Resistance to Ukraine Joining NATO.” Bloomberg.com, January 17, 2023. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-17/kissinger-reverses-sheds-resistance-to-ukraine-joining-nato.
Siebold, Sabine, Andrew Gray, and John Irish. “NATO Summit Declaration Says, ‘Ukraine’s Future Is in Nato.’” reuters.com, July 11, 2023. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/nato-summit-declaration-says-ukraines-future-is-nato-2023-07-11/.
[1] Kimball, Daryl G. “Ukraine, Nuclear Weapons, and Security Assurances at a Glance.” Arms Control, February 2022. https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Ukraine-Nuclear-Weapons.
[2] Borger, Julian. “We Knew in 2011 Putin Would Attack Ukraine, Says Bill Clinton.” The Guardian, May 5, 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/05/we-knew-putin-would-attack-ukraine-back-in-2011-says-bill-clinton.
[3] “Agenda: Former NATO Boss Lord Robertson.” heraldscotland.com, February 18, 2015. https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/13202257.agenda-former-nato-boss-lord-robertson/.
[4] Boyer, Spencer P., and Caroline Wadhams. “The NATO Summit in Bucharest.” Center for American Progress, April 2, 2008. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-nato-summit-in-bucharest/.
[5] Cohen, Eliot A. “The ‘Israel Model’ Will not Work for Ukraine.” The Atlantic, July 13, 2023. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/07/israel-model-ukraine/674683/.
[6] “NATO Eastern Flank Members Want to Boost Support for Ukraine at Alliance Summit in July.” AP News, June 6, 2023. https://apnews.com/article/nato-bucharest-nine-vilnius-summit-ukraine-ec401d10117a909789a792cb53815b6d.
[7] Brennan, David. “How Ukraine’s NATO Bid Went off the Rails in Vilnius.” newsweek.com, July 23, 2023. https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-nato-bid-failed-vilnius-german-pressure-1814568.
[8] Martin, Peter. “Henry Kissinger Sheds Resistance to Ukraine Joining NATO.” Bloomberg.com, January 17, 2023. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-17/kissinger-reverses-sheds-resistance-to-ukraine-joining-nato
The views expressed in the article are Mr. Miroshnichenko’s and does not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation or the FOUN