Could hypothetical invitation to NATO not be trap for Ukraine?

• Which territories of Ukraine will be covered (if at all) by any ‘temporary guarantees’ of individual NATO members until the accession protocol is ratified.
• How the treatment of Ukrainian territories controlled by Russia will be defined.

The definition of the first point may involve the protocol separation of Ukrainian territories controlled by Russia with geographical coordinates. And this is where the main trap arises: ‘the return of these territories to Ukraine is possible only through diplomatic means’ (otherwise, Ukraine will draw NATO into a war with Russia, and this is something that NATO wants to avoid at all costs).

Because with Russia, ‘diplomatically’ means ‘never’ until Russia collapses.

Therefore, the hypothetical invitation to NATO may not be a trap for Ukraine in the two scenarios.

• The invitation is an act of ‘political will’, and the protocol on Ukraine's accession to NATO will be signed only after the end of hostilities with Russia (with adequate Western assistance — with access to the borders in 2013). This makes sense if Western leaders decide to do so.
• The invitation and accession protocol would not severely restrict Ukraine from (a) clearly defining which territories it does not control and (b) committing to not regaining those territories by military means under any circumstances.

The latter is the same shameful ‘peace in exchange for territories’ that I have already written about.

How to legally formalize everything so that Ukraine's further regaining of its territories does not drag NATO into a war with Russia is a two-star task for diplomats. But there is either this narrow passage or no passage at all.

Source

About the author. Oleksiy Panych, philosopher, member of the Ukrainian Centre of PEN International, blogger.

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