If we analyze the recent discourse in the West, we can see that they are finally coming to the realization that the only option for long-term stability on the European continent is for Ukraine to join NATO. This was recently mentioned even by Fukuyama and Kissinger, albeit in a rather peculiar concept of "partial accession" without the territories occupied by Russia. Such considerations are unrealistic because, for all their theoretical appeal to some, they cannot be implemented in practice.
But what is important is that the thinking is heading in the right direction. Albeit not as fast as it should be.
Read also: Putin is dying of old defeats
Again, we are now talking about "security guarantees" for Ukraine. NATO membership continues to be the most effective guarantee. And the reason is simple. Russia needs to understand that it will attack in the future not Ukraine, which is smaller, but the West, which is larger. This understanding is crucial in the context of the Russian worldview, which still operates under the primitive tribal logic of whoever is bigger is right.
“The events of the 1990s left us vulnerable and defenseless, while also excluding us from the framework of collective security. In essence, the West has inadvertently displayed a large sign for Russia over Ukraine that says ‘attack here.’”
As for the security guarantees that are being discussed now. This may be something transitional and temporary until the issue of NATO membership is resolved. The logic of "saturating Ukraine with weapons so that the cost for Russia becomes higher and higher" has one flaw. Russia is quite capable of paying this cost. They have a lot of money. They do not plan to spend it on anything other than war. What can be considered a "high cost" for a state willing to invest billions of dollars in missile attacks on Ukrainian power transformers?
Read also: Everyone who caused war should be tried in The Hague
Even in the case of the most successful outcome of the war for Ukraine, Russia may want to take revenge after a while. Just to try. It follows a logical line of thinking for them: "What do we have to lose? Except for money, of which we already have plenty, and human lives, which we do not value."
However, Ukraine's membership in NATO is a completely different case. It serves as a clear message to Russians that they can face consequences for their aggression against Ukraine. And only this understanding is an effective argument in dealing with the Muscovite tribe.
“The West can spend decades looking for rationality in Muscovites, but it all comes down to a simple question: whether a Muscovite expects to punch another in the face or is afraid of getting punched in the face himself.”
And one more thing. It is important that a fundamental decision on Ukraine’s NATO membership is made now. Not an abstract one about "open doors" that only increase the aggression of the Muscovites, but a concrete one. The goal of the war on the part of the aggressor is to capture Ukraine. Ukraine's membership in NATO makes this goal impossible. Accordingly, we need to think about "crawling back.” This is so obvious that there is nothing to say about it. If the Euro-Atlantic community had not been affected by the virus of fear, they would have realized it themselves. Therefore, adequate solutions have to be gnawed out. While the understanding of the situation is gradually increasing, the timing of taking adequate actions remains uncertain. However, delaying a firm decision comes at an increasingly high cost.
About the author. Petro Oleshchuk, political scientist.
The editorial staff do not always share the opinions expressed by the blog authors.