Ukraine is NATO's Achilles' heel

The member states of the Alliance seriously thought about their security and decided to allocate more money from their own budgets for it. The threats to the bloc were named not in veiled and vague ways, but in the right words.

But can we call this meeting in Washington a success? And most importantly, can this summit be called historic? Of course, I will answer these questions as a citizen of Ukraine, who is primarily interested in the outcome of the meeting for my country.

Let me start with the last one. Yes, this meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization heads of state can indeed be called a success for Ukraine. The declaration adopted at the end of the summit contains several important points for Ukraine. First, we received assurances that NATO is with us to the end, that is, until we defeat the Russian aggressor. Late on Thursday evening, during a joint press conference with Jens Stoltenberg, President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy said: "We appreciate the decision on air defense, five Patriots for Ukraine and dozens of other air defense systems, and we expect them to be delivered as soon as possible so that as many lives as possible can be saved."

Secondly, the Alliance leadership established the NATO Security Assistance and Training Ukraine (NSATU) mission. This structure will be located in Germany and will coordinate the provision of comprehensive assistance to Ukraine in the long term. It will be headed by the High Representative. In addition, NSATU will supervise the training of Ukrainian military personnel at training grounds in various Western countries. But most importantly, it will contribute to the transformation of Ukraine's defense forces, which will allow them to further integrate into the Alliance.

And finally, Ukraine will receive €40 billion from NATO in 2025. Interestingly, member states will make proportional contributions for this purpose. This money should be used to ensure that Ukraine's defense forces outnumber Russia's forces and win on the battlefield. At the same time, the NATO leadership emphasized that such assistance would in no way make them a party to the confrontation with Russia. And here is another quote from the declaration: "Russia seeks to fundamentally reconfigure the Euro-Atlantic security architecture.  The all-domain threat Russia poses to NATO will persist into the long term.  Russia is rebuilding and expanding its military capabilities, and continues its airspace violations and provocative activities.  We stand in solidarity with all Allies affected by these actions.  NATO does not seek confrontation, and poses no threat to Russia."

It is also interesting that, following the meeting in Washington, China was called a "decisive enabler" that, through its support of the Russian military-industrial complex, contributes to the continuation of the war. Moreover, the leaders of NATO member states called on the leadership of China not to supply Russia with dual-use goods that could be used, for example, in the production of missiles. In particular, we are talking about the latest microchips, which cannot be produced in Russia at the moment. Therefore, Beijing was openly threatened: "China cannot afford to support the largest war in Europe in recent history without this negatively affecting its interests and reputation."

So this summit was successful for Ukraine. We will get more weapons, more money, more support. And this is despite the attempts of some leaders to sabotage this decision.

But, in my deep conviction, this summit, unfortunately, did not become a historic one for Kyiv. Ukraine continued to be a kind of Achilles' heel for NATO. Despite the wording about the irreversibility of Ukraine's progress toward membership in the Alliance, we were not given the most important thing: an invitation to join.

Thus, the final declaration contains the following wording: "As Ukraine continues this vital work, we will continue to support it on its irreversible path to full Euro-Atlantic integration, including NATO membership." I have heard people saying that this is already a victory for Ukraine, as even before the summit, the US was strongly opposed to this wording. In Washington, they preferred to call Ukraine's progress toward membership in the Alliance a "bridge." However, we can enter the bridge, but there are no guarantees that we will be allowed to cross it. We could simply be turned back.

Thus, the phrase "irreversible process" does look encouraging. But, unfortunately, it is only encouraging. Let me try to explain it to you in simple terms. Imagine that you are going on a trip to a country that requires a visa to cross the border. You are told that they don't mind you coming. They say that your arrival is an irreversible process. But at the same time, you have to take several mandatory steps: mandatory vaccinations, not to bring things that are prohibited in this country, to be aware of all the restrictions that may exist there. At the same time, you are constantly told that they do not mind you coming if you fulfill all the mandatory requirements. And you fulfill them, prepare for the trip. But... you can't go because you don't know the date for which you need to buy a ticket, because you haven't been issued a visa. Of course, no one tells you that they don't want to see you. But they are not ready to accept you either. Here's another sentence from the final communiqué: "We reaffirm that we will be in a position to extend an invitation to Ukraine to join the Alliance when Allies agree and conditions are met." That is, we still need a common agreement. And it does not exist now.

And yes, I will not argue that this decision was approved in Washington because they still do not want to irritate Russia once again by provoking it to make statements about an "asymmetric response." But it looks very much like this is the case. And that Ukraine remains NATO's Achilles' heel. Germany does not want to provide Ukraine with long-range Taurus missiles, arguing that it does not want to become a party to the conflict. Hungary blocks various decisions of Brussels regarding assistance to Ukraine, saying that this will not stop the war, but will only intensify it. And so on. Ukrainians are very grateful to NATO for all the help and support we receive. But we need real protection, which is guaranteed by Article 5 of the collective security treaty.

I hope that one day we will receive such an invitation and such protection. But when? Unfortunately, no one can answer this question now.

Exclusively for Espreso

About the author. Yuriy Fizer, journalist, TV presenter, international commentator

The editors do not always share the opinions expressed by the blog authors.