The Atlantic Alliance will define Ukraine’s path to membership as “irreversible.” This is how clear the commitment that NATO designs will be for the country invaded by Russia, which, however, will not receive a formal invitation to join the military organization, neither at the decisive summit in Washington, next July, nor in the near future. , according to allied sources. A prospect that may once again unleash kyiv’s frustration. A more concrete proposal, with a date, is not on the table for now. The Alliance fears that extending its security umbrella over Ukraine will cause it to enter the war, but at the same time it seeks to send a message to the Kremlin, which has used the argument of kyiv’s future membership and the expansion of the transatlantic organization in its attempt to justify the invasion.
While Moscow’s troops continue pushing to open new fronts, allies debate how to strengthen economic, diplomatic and military support for Ukraine with Donald Trump-proof measures and formulas, in case the Republican, who has had a complicated relationship with kyiv, returns to the White House after the November presidential elections in the United States.
The relationship between Ukraine and the United States, which is already in a pre-electoral moment, has been strained in recent times. And pressure is increasing for Joe Biden’s Administration, and other allies, such as Germany, to allow kyiv to use the medium and long-range weapons that it has supplied to attack military targets in Russian territory. “The time has come to rethink some of these restrictions, to allow the Ukrainians to really defend themselves,” insisted the Secretary General of the Alliance, Jens Stoltenberg, this Thursday in Prague, where a meeting of foreign ministers is being held that will include country attacked as the main issue. “Ukraine can still prevail, but only with solid and continuous support from NATO allies,” added the Norwegian, who will leave the position, which he has held since 2014, expected in September.
This Thursday, Russia once again accused the Atlantic Alliance of raising tension with the debate on the use of allied weapons. “In recent days and weeks, NATO members, especially the US and other European countries, have entered a new phase of escalating tensions. And they do it consciously,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov said this Thursday.
Washington has not allowed kyiv to launch attacks against military targets in Russia with the weapons it provides for fear of a direct US confrontation with a nuclear-armed adversary. In addition, he fears that they could hit some Russian nuclear radar. Other countries have so far followed that same policy. However, in recent days, as it becomes clear that cutting the logistical lines of Russian troops is essential for Ukraine, it appears to be open to allowing it. The Secretary of State of the United States, Antony Blinken, spoke this Wednesday of some flexibility. “This is, ultimately, the war in Ukraine,” said the US ambassador to NATO, Julianne Smith. “They need to determine how to execute that war, and we ultimately leave it in their hands,” she added cryptically in a conference with several media outlets.
Germany also seems increasingly open to the idea, although it has refused to supply kyiv with its powerful Taurus missiles, which can travel more than 500 kilometers. “It is likely that the restrictions will be eliminated so that Ukraine can respond to the attacks it already suffers, but also to prevent the deployment of large Russian contingents or a new offensive on Ukrainian territory,” remarks Ian Lesser, advisor to the president of the center. of thought German Marshall Fund. “Limiting these attacks is making Ukraine fight with one hand tied behind its back,” he adds.
Join Morning Express to follow all the news and read without limits.
Subscribe
The consensus on allowing Ukraine to attack military targets in Russia is increasing, but in reality it is not a common decision, but rather that of each ally to agree with kyiv on what use it should give to the material it supplies, explain allied sources, although a common criterion is desirable. In fact, there are countries that are against it, but they do not deliver long-range materials or ammunition.
Frustration
The debate over the use of allied weapons reflects growing frustration in Ukraine — which expected to receive a formal invitation to join the organization last summer — over the slow maneuvering speed of NATO allies. The organization wants to consolidate at the Washington summit, where it will commemorate its 75 years, a security and training initiative for Ukraine that seeks to bring the invaded country closer to NATO, through good governance programs, systems interoperability, modernization of the army and assimilation of its forces to those of the 32-member transatlantic institution. They are formulas accompanied by financial aid so that the Ukrainian army leaves the Soviet doctrine and is prepared to join the Alliance when the time comes.
But the most tortuous thing now is determining whether the long-term support for Ukraine that is being designed includes substantial, long-term economic support that allows kyiv to know what it has. Stoltenberg has proposed a plan of 100,000 million euros over five years – in packages of 20,000 million per year – in a kind of lifeline to proof Trump, a politician who is considered closer to the Russian Vladimir Putin than to the Ukrainian Volodymyr Zelensky and who, in addition, has spoken out against the policy of the current US Administration towards kyiv.
But the project is not taking off: several allies have criticized Stoltenberg’s idea, others point out that they already have bilateral support agreements with Ukraine – Spain has just signed one of 1,000 million for this year – and that there is also the contribution plan with the European Union. At a time of tight budgets, agreeing on a multi-year scheme is extremely difficult.
United States, where it was difficult to approve the $61 billion aid package for Ukraine [unos 55.000 millones de euros], nor does he seem to be on board with Stoltenberg’s idea, who will have to work hard until the Washington summit if he wants the final declaration, which will consolidate that Ukraine’s path towards NATO is “irreversible”, to include a package quantifiable economic. In fact, with how much it cost to carry out the latest aid from Washington—especially by the Republicans—some already see those $61 billion as the settlement for kyiv. Especially in a context of political uncertainty. “Regardless of the outcome of the elections, the US Administration is going to look to Europe, to the European Union, to do more,” concludes Lesser.
Follow all the international information onFacebook andxor inour weekly newsletter.
.
.
_
