Former secretary general says partial membership would warn Russia it cannot stop Ukraine joining the alliance.
Anders Fogh Rasmussen
Ex-Nato chief proposes Ukraine joins without Russian-occupied territories
Former secretary general says partial membership would warn Russia it cannot stop Ukraine joining the alliance
Patrick Wintour Diplomatic Editor
Sat 11 Nov 2023
A former Nato secretary general has put forward a proposal for Ukraine to join the military alliance but stripped of the territories occupied by Russia.
Anders Fogh Rasmussen has long worked alongside Andriy Yermak, an adviser to the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, particularly ahead of the last Nato summit in Vilnius this year that ended with no invitation for Ukraine to join.
The two men are again broadly discussing Ukraine’s place in a new European security architecture, including practical questions around the extent of Ukraine’s Nato membership.
Rasmussen, who was Nato’s secretary general between 2009 and 2014, insisted that a plan for partial Ukraine membership would not symbolise a freezing of the conflict, but would instead mark a determination to warn Russia that it cannot prevent Ukraine joining the western defensive alliance.
Nato is due to hold its 75th anniversary summit in Washington next summer, and the issue of Ukraine’s future membership is bound to be a major topic.
Ukraine’s leadership was left bitterly disappointed when, under US and German pressure, Nato at its summit this year issued a statement saying Ukraine would be offered an invitation when conditions allowed, effectively rejecting Ukraine’s request to be given a specific date.
Instead, Ukraine’s relationship with Nato was elevated on the margins by setting up a Ukraine-Nato council and through an agreement that Nato members bilaterally would offer security guarantees to Ukraine.
Rasmussen said the cause of Ukraine’s Nato membership cannot be deferred again next year. He said: “The time has come to take the next step and extend an invitation for Ukraine to join Nato. We need a new European security architecture in which Ukraine is in the heart of Nato.”
Those advocating for Ukraine’s Nato membership have been hamstrung by the near-impossibility of a country at war being offered membership, since under Nato’s article 5 clause of collective self-defence, all Nato member states are required to come to the active defence of the country in conflict. Nato membership for all of Ukraine now would in effect be a notice to Russia by Nato that it was about to go to war with Moscow.
By excluding from Nato territory held by Russia, the threat of a Russia-Nato conflict would be reduced, Rasmussen argues.
Rasmussen denied the move would freeze the conflict, ceding Ukrainian territory to Russia. He said: “The absolute credibility of article 5 guarantees would deter Russia from mounting attacks inside the Ukrainian territory inside Nato and so free up Ukrainian forces to go to the frontline.”
He said: “To make article 5 credible there would have to be a clear message to Russia that any violation of Nato territory would be met by a response.” He said in some ways the proposal is similar to imposing a no-fly zone on Russia so that it could not fly over Ukrainian territory or send missiles into Ukrainian towns.
Discussions are under way to enlist military specialists ahead of the next Nato summit to work through the details of their idea, including how in the context of shifting frontlines a credible demarcation line could be drawn, showing Ukrainian territory deemed inside Nato and territory occupied by Russia.
Rasmussen said an imprecise precedent existed since west Germany joined the alliance in 1955, and article 5 covered its territory but not that of east Germany.
He set out three principal reasons for Ukraine to be offered membership. Ukraine inside Nato would act as a bulwark against a still-aggressive Russia. Second, he said: “We have to realise that grey zones are danger zones. Neutrality in the old sense of the world does not exist any more. Grey zones become a temptation for Putin to attack.” Finally, he argued the Ukrainian army is now the most battle hardened army in Europe and would be an asset and example to other European powers.
He said a total of 25 countries in addition to the countries inside the G7 were negotiating bilateral security agreements with Ukraine as part of an umbrella agreement called the Kyiv security compact that is supposed to act as a bridge to full Nato membership. The compact includes large-scale weapons transfers, enhanced intelligence sharing and support to Ukraine’s defence industry so that it can more independently produce weapons and ammunition.
In Ukraine’s shoes I’d accept such a deal. Provided it is understood that the war continues until the complete liberation of Ukraine’s legal territories.
I suggested long ago that individual nations; at least responsible ones, should provide boots on the ground, with air support, for key cities; thus freeing off more Ukrainian troops for the front line.
Problem of course is that shit countries like Hungary, Slovakia, Turkey etc would veto such a decision.
Probably France and Germany would as usual exercise their veto. Likely Biden too.
As for for Gospodin Trumpkov: he’d be joining the C.I.S.
Not sure I agree with this. Putler keeps hold of Ukraine’s south, access to the Black sea is limited, and Putler could block Ukrainian ports at will, knowing NATO can’t enter the Black with more than 2 ships.
It’s a question of interpretation. The way I read it is that Nato offers full protection to the areas not under putinaZi occupation. Putler keeps nothing. Ukraine fights on until the scum are removed.
Which is acceptable.
It’s all academic anyway, because it’s hard to see any of Ukraine’s allies having the guts or integrity to expedite it.
Not sure how this would work. If the Ukrainian controlled parts of Ukraine are allowed to join NATO, but keep fighting to regain the rest of Ukraine, NATO would have to get involved, because russia wouldn’t just allow Ukraine to retake the occupied territories without a fight. If this is come convoluted NFZ then it might work, as long as the Putlerites in NATO agree.
It’s all hypothetical of course. But such a scenario is 100 times better than what Ukraine has to suffer right now.
Nato forces would be in unoccupied Ukraine, as per the West Germany model. They would only attack putler forces if themselves attacked.
Ukraine could then send some of their best troops, in considerable numbers, to the front line and then push the scum out.
Surely Ukrainians would jump at such an opportunity?
It would be a much better scenario than the one the country is now facing.
Your last sentence is based on reality, Scradge. I’m afraid the rest is pure fantasy, due to the lack of courage and integrity of most NATO members.
I think this would be a good idea, of course, if the Ukrainian people agreed to it. If it means that the unoccupied parts of the country are under NATO protection, and Ukraine can continue its cleansing campaign, why not?
It sounds like a good idea, as long as it’s clearly understood that it doesn’t amount to a freezing of the current front lines. Having NATO protection for the Odessa, Chernomorsk and Yuzhny ports would greatly benefit Ukraine. (Not to mention all the other cities.)