NATO membership is again on the horizon

George W. If Bush had his way 15 years ago, the question would have been decided long ago. At the 2008 NATO summit, the US president strongly advocated for the two new allies, and his defense adviser Condoleezza Rice reportedly cried even when there was no consensus.

“Angela Merkel in particular made sure that Ukraine and Georgia’s NATO membership was a promise for the future without a fixed date,” recalls her foreign policy adviser at the time, Christoph Heusken.

In Kiev, Merkel’s work contributed to a more positive image of German Russia policy, which has slowly begun to change with a significant increase in arms deliveries in recent months. Heusken continues to defend the fact that Berlin does not have Ukraine’s accession in the spirit of the Russian president.

“In retrospect, I think that this offer to Vladimir Putin was correct – firstly, Ukraine was not so far away, and secondly, there was still hope that Russia could be integrated into a European security framework.”

At a NATO summit in Vilnius on Tuesday and Wednesday, nearly 17 months after Russian attacks on Ukraine, the heads of state and government of the 31 member states must now answer the question of whether more should be done on the alliance’s core promise. Specific. If so, how?

There is no peace without security

It is clear to all actors that Kiev needs long-term international security guarantees. Without them, Ukraine will not be safe even after a ceasefire or a peace treaty, unless the Russian Federation abandons its aggressive imperialist policies. For President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, future security is a precondition for engaging in negotiations.

Early considerations of abandoning NATO’s future promise and accepting a neutral position for peace were long off the table. In the fall, Zelensky applied for accelerated admission to the coalition.

It seems unreal while the war is still raging. After all, in 1995 NATO imposed a condition that a country with an unresolved border dispute, such as Cyprus, could not become a member – because the alliance could then become a belligerent party.

Only recently, in an interview with Tagesspiegel, the NATO Secretary General emphasized that the only question in Vilnius is “whether or not we will support Ukraine’s NATO membership very quickly once the war is over.”

On Friday, US President Joe Biden spoke clearly on CNN on the question of Ukraine’s imminent accession: “I don’t think he’s ready for NATO membership.” Article 5 Every inch of territory must be defended, and then the entire alliance. War.

Access to the free regions of Ukraine has long been discussed

The Balts and Poles in particular repeatedly pressed for rapid access. Lithuania, the host country of the summit, cleverly placed the message on the summit building. “Ukraine” and “NATO” are the only two words inscribed in capital letters.

Margarete Klein and Claudia Major, security experts at the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, recently outlined the considerations for membership before the end of the war with the following argument: “If NATO accession depends on regional conflicts, it will encourage Russia to end the conflict with Ukraine. Deliberately keep it simmering.”

Therefore, they consider that “Independent Territories joining NATO is conceivable”. It is therefore a prerequisite that Ukraine must coordinate military operations with the coalition, otherwise Article 5 will not apply.

Michael Roth also didn’t want to go that far. However, the head of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Bundestag could imagine that Ukraine could be included, at least in part, for the post-war period: “The idea refers to the theoretical case of a ‘frozen conflict’ that remains unresolved after a peaceful settlement.” He wrote on Twitter this week: “I can definitely imagine Ukraine joining hereBut this does not entail NATO assistance obligations to territories occupied by Russia.

Huisgen, a former Merkel adviser who is chairing the Munich Security Conference, thinks past concerns are outdated. “Today the situation is completely different, Putin has taken advantage of the West’s opinion,” he told Tagesspiegel.

Doubt in Washington and Berlin

However, Ukrainian hopes that an invitation could be extended there or that the so-called Membership Action Plan rejected by Kiev in 2008 could be implemented have faded further in recent weeks.

In this regard, there is great skepticism from the White House in Washington and the Federal Chancellery in Berlin. Both Biden and President Olaf Scholz (SPD) are concerned that as the war progresses, pressure to advance a nomination made by Vilnius to the post-war period may increase.

Biden and Scholz continue to see potential for escalation between NATO and Russia. Post-war security guarantees should be negotiated bilaterally or in a “coalition of the willing”, not a coalition.

Further interview statements by Biden became known on Sunday, according to which the United States could be a kind of security force for Ukraine, as it already is for Israel. However, this transition phase would only begin after the war ended — and Biden was deliberately left open during his approach.

For now, Scholz and he want to keep it below the accession threshold to be launched in Vilnius, in closer cooperation between NATO and Ukraine. The NATO-Ukraine Council is set to meet there for the first time on Wednesday, which will intensify cooperation in various fields with all kinds of working groups and sub-committees. According to Stoltenberg, a “multi-year package” of political and military support will be decided.

The open question at the summit is whether Kiev and its Eastern European allies will be satisfied with just renewing Bucharest’s promise that Ukraine will one day join NATO. Finding more formulas that bring the Ukrainian goal closer, but not too close, is Biden, Scholz & Co. in Vilnius. Counselors will have a difficult task.