Max DELANY, Pierre-Henry DESHAYES
NATO foreign ministers meeting in Oslo Thursday debated providing security guarantees to Ukraine after its war with Russia ends, as the alliance looks to narrow divisions over Kyiv’s push to join the bloc.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February last year has galvanised the Western military alliance set up almost 75 years ago to face off against the Soviet Union.
But with just over five weeks to a summit of NATO leaders in Lithuania’s capital Vilnius there are splits on key issues.
Chief among them is Kyiv’s push to join NATO, an organisation that requires consensus to make decisions.
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, backed by NATO countries in eastern Europe, is calling for a “clear message” at the July summit that Kyiv will join once the war with Russia ends.
But diplomats from NATO countries say its dominant military power, the United States, is reluctant to go further than a 2008 vow that Ukraine would one day become a member.
Joining NATO would mean Ukraine would be covered by the alliance’s Article 5 collective defence clause that obliges all allies to help defend it if attacked.
One option being weighed is major powers offering Ukraine bilateral security assurances in the years before it becomes a full NATO member.
“We need to ensure that history doesn’t repeat itself, that this pattern of Russian aggression against Ukraine really stops,” NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told the meeting in Oslo.
“Therefore we need to have in place frameworks to provide guarantees for Ukrainian security after the end of the war.”
French President Emmanuel Macron on Wednesday backed “tangible and credible security guarantees” for Ukraine.
But there are major questions over how any commitments to Kyiv would work.
“We must give strong defence guarantees to Ukraine,” said Estonia’s Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna.
“This is a clear message to (President Vladimir) Putin and to Russia. They know and understand only the clear language.”
On a practical level, Stoltenberg is pushing for a decade-long programme worth 500 million euros ($530 million) per year to help Ukraine’s military switch to Western standards.
That would be on top of the tens of billions of dollars in arms that allies have already sent.
“The most urgent and important task now is to ensure that Ukraine prevails,” Stoltenberg said.
– New NATO head? –
Another hot potato for the Vilnius gathering is a new pledge to boost NATO’s current target for each member to spend at least two percent of gross domestic product on defence.
Only seven members hit that figure last year, and the allies agree on the need to make the two-percent goal “a floor, not a ceiling”.
But Eastern European members, which have already boosted defence spending beyond that, are disappointed by the lack of ambition shown by some allies.
On the other side, members such as Canada and Luxembourg are reticent to make any greater ambition too concrete.
One issue also being discussed by ministers on the sidelines of the meeting is finding a successor to Stoltenberg as NATO secretary general.
The former Norwegian premier has held the post since 2014. Last year, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, his tenure was extended to September this year.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has emerged as a possible frontrunner and is heading to Washington next week for a meeting with US President Joe Biden.
She has bolstered her case by promising to triple Denmark’s defence budget over the next decade.
But newer NATO members from the eastern part of Europe complain it is time one of their politicians gets the job, arguing it should not be dominated by just one region.
Other names being mentioned are Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas, Romania’s President Klaus Iohannis, and British Defence Secretary Ben Wallace.
Diplomats say that if no clear choice emerges then Stoltenberg — who says he won’t put himself forward — may be asked to stay on still longer, into next year.
The only security guarantees Ukraine need are the country flooding with weapons, not hot air.
Best security guarantee is Nato membership after the invaders were defeated. Btw, when will apache choppers arrive in Ukraine?
The concept of Nato is very simple and straightforward: an alliance of military powers whose sole purpose is the prevention of Russian expansion and genocide.
So if it is to continue to exist, it must consist exclusively of members a) that do not kowtow to Russia under any circumstances, b) are willing to fight Russia, c) have the capability to do so and d) are willing to invest a minimum of 2% of GDP into their armed forces.
On that basis, Nato would jettison most of its members and immediately add Ukraine.
Dithering by its members caused putler’s genocide of Ukraine. It has also enabled putler to achieve defacto control of Georgia.
The piss-ass Marxist Stoltenberg will likely remain or be replaced by another wanker. The chances of Benny Wallace or anyone who is tough on Russia getting the gig are extremely low.
“The most urgent and important task now is to ensure that Ukraine prevails,” Stoltenberg said.
In that case, you can do that now by sending full air, ground and sea support for Ukraine, dickhead.
In any case, the Budapest signatories plus Poland, should now be doing the above. They don’t have to be at the front line, they can guard Lviv, Kyiv, Odesa and Mykolaiv, thus freeing off more Ukrainian forces to deal with Crimea and Donbas.
IMHO NATO is a useless org as effective as OCSE, UN and any other supposed org who goal is security and peace. They exist to waste taxpayer money and give cushy jobs to brainless idiots. It isn’t just a matter of rewriting the charters, their inherent flaws are revealed through the disparity of their cultures, their values, their ambitions and mostly their historical DNA. Not saying any country is better or worst then another country only that an org that doesn’t share an inherent value, there will never be cohesiveness. In his case, smaller is better. Eastern European countries share the same values as do Western European countries. Why try to force a square peg in a round hole. Exploit the commonality of the regions, do things together that can make each region stronger but to think one org can do it all is NUTS. IMHO.