NATO discusses timeline for Ukraine's membership

For quite pragmatic reasons: The Ukrainian Armed Forces have not weakened Russia sufficiently. Cynical, but honest.

Ukraine will eventually have to become a NATO member, it cannot help but do so - everyone recognizes this. But by that time, it must sufficiently deprive Russia of the resources to engage in wider aggression and to continue its aggression. And NATO should focus on continuing and expanding the supply of weapons and ammunition to Ukraine.

“Ukraine's early accession to the Alliance could provoke a full-scale conflict between NATO and Russia. ...Amid this, there is a prospect that the conflict will turn into a nuclear one.”

Thus, the major NATO members (primarily Germany and the United States) believe that there is still time to consistently weaken Russia through Ukrainian efforts to the point where it can no longer threaten anyone or anything. All that is needed for this is to provide Ukraine with weapons. In the meantime, we should take Putin's nuclear blackmail moderately seriously.

Eastern European and Baltic countries, on the other hand, are convinced that there is no time for a slow swing. And that postponement will not change the situation, regardless of the realities. Either Putin will bluff equally now, with NATO's demonstrative distancing, or later, in the event of Ukraine's accession and the prospect of all other members (32 at the time) intervening in the war. Or Putin will continue to blackmail with a nuclear attack on one scale or another, regardless of the degree of NATO's direct involvement in the confrontation.

Obviously, the proponents of escalation believe that this is the only way to bring Putin to his senses. This view is also popular in certain circles of the US government, especially among Republicans. In contrast to Biden's cautious step-by-step escalation with an assessment of the results of each step, Republicans believe it is more effective to use the maximum available resources at once and close the topic of Putin's aggression.

“But such a division into ‘Vikings’ and ‘Musketeers,’ supporters of one rough blow and supporters of many painful injections, does not affect the two basic points that have already been approved.”

First, both camps consider it necessary to provide the Ukrainian Armed Forces with everything they need.

Secondly, both camps consider it necessary to increase funding for the national military-industrial complex and direct defense spending to the minimum Trumpian 2%.

And most importantly, both have already made a decision, as we can see: Ukraine's place is in NATO. Only the timing and circumstances are being discussed.

Source

About the author. Oleksiy Holobutsky, political scientist.

The editors don't always share the opinions expressed by the authors of the blogs.