Oleg Sharp’s author’s channel: politics, economy, history, trends, insiders, good humor, evil sarcasm.
▪️The Madrid summit has ended. Formally, he did not make any breakthrough decisions regarding Kyiv, but if it were not for Russia’s large-scale invasion of Ukraine, NATO’s new strategic concept would most likely have a completely different look. The alliance would not discuss sending thousands of troops to its eastern flank, and Sweden and Finland would hardly even consider renouncing neutrality.
▪️The attitude of the current Ukrainian government towards NATO is difficult to call unambiguous. As an inheritance from Petro Poroshenko, Zelenskyi received the desire of Kyiv to join the Alliance enshrined in the constitution. But it turned out that it was precisely this point that the green government was ready to sacrifice shortly after the beginning of the Russian invasion.
▪️Ukrainian proposals to end hostilities – also known as the Istanbul Communiqué – developed at the end of March, included Kyiv’s commitment to abandon NATO integration in exchange for “security guarantees” from the most influential countries.
▪️Soon after the publication of this communiqué, Bankova began actively criticizing NATO in public: they say that we don’t really need it. Even then, such a policy faced misunderstanding not only of Ukrainians, but also of foreign leaders – even London and Washington were in no hurry to give us military guarantees outside the Alliance.
▪️But soon – when it became clear that it was impossible to implement the plan outlined in the Istanbul Communiqué – the Ukrainian authorities suddenly “changed their gears” and again began to claim that NATO is the strongest alliance on the planet, and Ukraine, of course, wants to join it.
▪️At the Madrid summit, the head of the Ukrainian delegation, Ihor Zhovkva, said that “no one is removing the Euro-Atlantic integration of Ukraine from the agenda.” And he cannot answer for the previous statements of official Kyiv, since he did not participate in the preparation of the Istanbul Communiqué.
▪️One way or another, on the eve of the summit, the representatives of the Ukrainian authorities tried to achieve the most favorable wording for Kyiv in the new edition of the strategic concept of the alliance. For example, Reznikov stated that Ukraine must be mentioned in this document within the internationally recognized borders – that is, with Crimea and all of Donbas.
▪️As a result, the formulation desired by Reznikov never appeared in the concept. Instead, there appeared a reference to the decision of the Bucharest NATO summit in 2008 – then the alliance declared that Ukraine would become its member in some uncertain future.
❗️Several conclusions can be drawn from the above:
➖To prevent this from happening, you cannot try to disavow fundamental things laid down in the Ukrainian Constitution. If it is a course towards NATO, it must be unwavering and unquestionable. Throwing from extreme to extreme only confuses our strategic partners. I am sure: if it were not for the somersaults of our authorities, at this summit we could have received a MAP, and not just a reference to the decision of the Bucharest summit.
➖The fact that 50 countries, most of which are members of the Alliance, currently provide us with weapons used in the Alliance, shows that we are actually moving to NATO standards in the military-technical field. This is good – especially since the specialists of the Armed Forces of Ukraine are already receiving the necessary training in the USA, Great Britain, Germany, the Netherlands and other countries.
➖You should never be offended that our partners are doing something wrong. 90% of everything depends on us – what successes we will demonstrate on the battlefield, how we will work in this sense on the international stage, how effectively we use their weapons and advice, etc. No one will be more Ukrainian than Ukrainians themselves.
Let’s move forward, everything will be Ukraine!