By Elijah J. MAGNIER
❗️Join us on Telegram 
, Twitter 
, and VK 
.
In the run-up to next Tuesday’s NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, and the subsequent meeting of defence ministers in Brussels, Belgium, a few days later, Ukraine’s possible accession to the Western military alliance is taking centre stage. The outcome of these discussions has significant implications for the ongoing conflict between the United States and Russia on Ukrainian soil, potentially determining its duration or indefinite continuation. However, the prospect of Ukraine’s immediate admission to NATO remains distant.
Naturally, NATO members have reservations about Ukraine’s membership because it would put them in confrontation with the Russian army – a scenario outlined in the fifth clause of NATO’s constitution. This clause mandates mutual solidarity among alliance members in the event of an attack or direct military threat. Although this principle was not invoked during the almost inevitable Russian-Turkish clash in Syria in 2015, when Ankara shot down a Russian plane and deemed intervention unnecessary, the current circumstances are far more dangerous.
In a confrontation with the combined forces of NATO, should Ukraine become a member, Russia would not use conventional warfare as it cannot compete with the combined strength of all member states. Instead, nuclear weapons would come to the fore. The United States wants to avoid this outcome because its strategy is to exhaust Russia militarily and economically through a protracted war, with the Ukrainian army and infrastructure bearing the brunt of the costs.
Moreover, a weakened Ukrainian military and devastated economy would add little value to an alliance that already shares over a thousand kilometres of direct border with Russia, mainly from Finland’s perspective. As a result, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s appeal to NATO for a pre-emptive nuclear strike will have little resonance with the United States, which leads NATO and will direct the war according to its objectives while avoiding derailing Moscow’s response.
As a result, NATO members, especially those in Western Europe (excluding the loyal eastern nations, except Hungary), are reluctant to risk a nuclear confrontation with Russia. In addition, Europe is facing significant economic burdens and internal unrest, causing anxiety among officials and populations. Supporting Ukraine, even under considerable American pressure, takes a toll on officials’ popularity and Europe’s strained treasury, as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban recently pointed out after a meeting of European leaders in Brussels. Consequently, entering into direct military conflict with Russia would lead Europe down a path of no return, involving catastrophic mutual destruction – an unattractive prospect for any European nation.
While the United States has partially succeeded in securing Finland’s entry into NATO, it has not yet brought Russia to its knees. Instead, it has pushed Russia closer to China and other nations, relinquishing the complete world domination it achieved in the 1980s. The American professor John Mearsheimer claims that the United States has become an outcast, perceived as “the bully from whom everyone turns away to find other alternatives and new allies and partners who will not work to exploit and steal their natural resources and destroy their country”.
So the US is now passing the baton to Ukraine, supplying it with cluster munitions to continue the war and try to inflict more casualties on the Russian army after 500 days of ferocious fighting. On the other hand, Russia has successfully halted the Ukrainian counter-attack, depleting its ammunition, manpower and chances of a breakthrough, leaving it in a strong position in the event of a negotiated settlement.
The United States opposes peace negotiations through Turkish or African mediation or any other attempt to end the conflict. It believes Russia can still rebuild its military and economic strength and will not back down or admit defeat. As a result, any potential solution hinges on Ukraine’s inability to sustain the war. The United States can keep the conflict outside the scope of direct and overt NATO intervention, withhold Ukraine’s membership and seek to exhaust Russia in the long run. But it wants to prevent the Kremlin from resorting to more devastating weapons that could end the conflict abruptly or turn it into a devastating all-out war.
Consequently, the transfer of banned weapons to Ukraine by more than 100 countries, even if approved by both America and Russia, does not provoke Moscow. Even if the United States were to supply Ukraine with depleted uranium ammunition, Russia would respond without further escalating the situation.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s statement to his visiting Ukrainian counterpart that “Ukraine deserves to join NATO” lacks seriousness and is merely a political manoeuvre by Turkey that is unlikely to find widespread support within the Alliance. Accordingly, the Vilnius summit will offer Ukraine good support, including providing arms and ammunition, and promises that Kyiv will eventually become a full member. But keeping Ukraine on NATO’s doorstep, with the promise that one-day membership will not be ruled out, remains the West’s national security motto.
While reassuring promises unaccompanied by concrete enforcement action have not led to nuclear conflict in the past, the situation is likely to remain a controlled military conflict. America’s strategy is to dangle carrots in front of Ukraine, making promises and raising unrealistic hopes of NATO membership. At the same time, the dynamics of Ukraine are driving its citizens towards the American altar and its goals. Sadly, Ukraine is destined to come away empty-handed, having willingly embraced self-destruction. Remorse will be of little comfort when the dust settles, and the guns stop firing, revealing the bitter reality of Ukraine’s predicament.
