Atlantic Alliance members yesterday declined to set a timetable for Ukraine’s entry into NATO, saying only they will only invite Kiev “when the allies agree and the conditions are met.” Speaking to DN, university professor and commentator Vasco Rato argues that the leaders acted “with their heads and not their hearts”, recalling that “it is absurd to think of a firm commitment for Ukraine to join NATO when there is war”.
At the summit of the leaders of the 31 NATO countries – which could soon turn 32 after Turkey lifts obstacles to Sweden’s accession – which ends today in Vilnius, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg insisted that the Atlantic Alliance should never has used “stronger language” to aid Ukraine in its fight to counter the Russian invasion. But the statement that “Ukraine’s future lies in NATO” will have disappointed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who expected to leave Lithuania’s capital with a calendar.
“Zelensky does what he has to do, which is, in non-academic Portuguese, to throw the clay against the wall and thus exert enormous diplomatic pressure on public opinion”Lívia Franco, a professor and researcher at the Institute of Political Studies at the Catholic University of Portugal, told DN. “The promise that Ukraine will one day become a member of NATO is an old promise, from 2008. Now it is about the chosen accession modalities, namely the calendar,” he said.
The teacher recalls that there is a group led by Poland that is in favor of quick accession and another, “more moderate”, led by the US and which includes Portugal, that wants to wait. “We don’t even know when the war will end? Or what the terms of the peace will be? Is it a lasting peace or not? Or if Ukraine meets reasonable conditions internally from the point of view of governance, from the point of view of corruption, from the point of view of democratization of the armed forces, to effectively be a NATO member state,” he stressed.
“We are not going to let Ukraine in and then Ukraine will have to say: ‘Now we need your help’.”explains Vasco Rato. “What is meant by NATO is to discourage aggression. It is not to create conditions that will drag us all into a war and that seems absolutely reasonable to me,” he added, saying he understood that a NATO commitment to Zelensky “increases his negotiating power” with Russia. But, he also points out, on the Russian side this would make them less willing to negotiate.
And he also recalls that it is not certain what will happen to Ukraine at the end of the war, which is why a blank check cannot be given. “We don’t know if we’re going to have an ultra-nationalist, militarized dictatorship there, if we’re going to have a democratic regime. We don’t know. This idea that we are helping a democracy is a bit fictional. We help a country resist an invasion. Ukraine is far from a democracy’ added the former president of the Luso-American Development Foundation (FLAD).
Accession of Sweden
In the case of Sweden’s entry, unlocked by Turkey, both analysts agree that this is good news for the Atlantic Alliance. “NATO is not an offensive alliance, that is Russia’s rhetoric, it is a defensive alliance. And that is why NATO mainly wants to have the capacity and the means to prevent Russia from continuing what it did in Ukraine And the accession of these two countries [a Suécia e, em abril, a Finlândia] course, in practice strengthens NATO’s capabilities to increase its deterrent effect.” says Livia Franco.
Sweden’s participation “is very important. First of all because of the symbolism,” said Vasco Rato, recalling that, like Finland, it was a neutral country. “When we talk about neutrality, we should not confuse it with the lack of defense equipment. Sweden is a country that spends a lot on defense and has a very sophisticated military preparation. And in that sense, it’s also good for the Alliance because it strengthens the northern flank,” recalling the North Pole, another point of friction with Russia.
As for a response from Moscow, when the green light is given from the Turkish parliament, Lívia Franco thinks that, “from the point of view of discourse and rhetoric it is clear that we are going to see a new dramatization, a new escalation”. Vasco Rato added: “In fact, Russia will express concern as it reduces its security. But for all practical purposes, there is nothing that can be done about it.”
With regard to Turkey, the professor at the Institute of Political Studies states that President Recep Tayyip Erdogan found in Sweden’s entry “the golden opportunity” to advance a series of situations he had complained about for years. namely the support that Stockholm, according to him, gives to the PKK Kurds (considered a terrorist group). But also to unblock the F-16 deal with the US that has been blocked for years and even to promote rapprochement with the European Union. “What Erdogan did was make good use of the opportunity and try to make the best of it to promote his interests,” admitted Lívia Franco, recalling that all leaders try to do the same in negotiations of this gender.
Source: DN
