Ukrainian version is available by the link

Ukraine's crusade to join NATO (or refusal to join, as required by Russia) has recently become a top on the political agenda.

Both the Ukrainian and Russian sides confess that Ukraine's "neutrality" is one of the topics of the peace talks.

No surprise, a debate has started in Ukraine on whether we should keep seeking membership in the Alliance. Some say that Ukraine can give it up if it is critical for Russia. Others blame NATO for the lack of support and protection provided to Ukraine. 

Meanwhile, Ukrainian officials promote that Ukraine needs an alternative if NATO is not ready to offer membership. 

At the same time, significant efforts are invested in coordinated criticism towards NATO in te, creating the image of the "weak organization" that "does not support Ukraine." Most of this criticism is based on falsehoods and distortions, like statements of Ukrainian officials insisting that the Alliance will never accept Ukraine as a member. 

The reality is different. On the contrary, our chances to join NATO has become high for the first time. If Ukraine does not abandon its Euro-Atlantic aspirations now, it could become a member of NATO much faster than many imagine. 

Unfortunately, pare of Ukrainian elites is ready to give up this dream. There is a way to do that under the agreement with Russia. But the public understanding how serious the consequences may hamper these plans.

Peace deal vs victory

In the first days after the invasion, Western military analysts widely believed in Russian "blitzkrieg". Now everything has changed. Western intelligence is unanimous that the Russian army has stuck with immense problems. That is why Russia has moved to the tactics of mass shelling and missile strikes on civilian infrastructure, allegedly aiming to put pressure on Kyiv.

Of course, Ukrainian Armed Forces do not plan to surrender. Ukraine is keen to win this war.

But there is a question: what is a victory?

The final military surrender of Russia means the overthrow of its leadership that took a decision to invade, including Putin.

If the Russians carry out a coup themselves (for example, under pressure from sanctions/oligarchs), leading to the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine, it will be a good start. But no one has any confidence in such developments, nor the timeframe when it can happen.

The military victory is just impossible.

The Ukrainian military, though strong, is not immortal to capture and temporarily occupy Russia, a nuclear state. Also, the West undoubtedly will not support these actions (and will cease weaponry supply). If there is no complete victory and surrender of Russia, the war can only end with a peace agreement between Ukraine, Russia and, possibly, the international guarantors. Given that, no surprise that Zelensky is so keen to meet Putin for peace negotiation.

This possible peace deal can touch plenty of spheres, including relations between Ukraine and the Alliance, which is among the key demands of Russia. 

Three ways to abandon NATO

Even though the top leadership of Ukraine declares the possibility of abandoning NATO, and Ukrainian officials do actively contribute to information campaign against cooperation with the Alliance, abandoning Kyiv's movement towards membership is not as easy.

Also, we must be aware that it was not NATO that caused the invasion, so refusing to join the Alliance is not enough to satisfy Putin. But to make it simple, let's analyze the imaginary scenario that Russia promises Ukraine certain actions (stopping the advance of troops, withdrawing its army to some line, etc.) in exchange for fulfilling the Kremlin's demand for "neutrality", with a guarantee of Ukraine's refusal to join NATO.

Can Ukrainian leadership give such guarantees?

As you know, Ukraine's aspirations to join NATO are enshrined in the Constitution: in its preamble and the chapter on powers of the President and Prime minister. If these provisions are kept, Ukrainian leadership is legally obliged to move to NATO, even if Zelensky promise the opposite.

The Constitution explicitly forbids amending it during martial law or even a state of emergency. In addition, it is a rather long process, which involves voting in two sessions of the Parliament and requires the opinion of the Constitutional Court (which is currently not very loyal to the President). It is unrealistic to introduce the amendments in a couple of days or even weeks. Any stage can't be missed; otherwise, the Constitutional Court will cancel these changes later.

So, to change the Constitution, we need to reach a sustainable truce when the army does not feel the threat of a new attack, allowing us to renounce martial law. 

All of this means we must end the war before implementing the agreement with Russia if it includes NATO-related pledges by Ukraine.

Here we have very different scenarios.

The first option is a peace deal in a situation where the aggressor's army holds a significant part of the territory occupied during the current invasion, requiring massive military presence there.

Declaring the end of martial law under such conditions is suicidal nonsense (even if the Kremlin promises not to attack - we know the value of Russia's promises). Kyiv will definitely not go for it.

 Therefore, the constitutional amendment procedure for this scenario will not even begin.

Moreover, under these conditions, any final peace deal seems unrealistic. The negotiations proposals of the Russian Federation are guaranteed not to suit Ukraine. 

The second option is to sign peace with Russia after the Ukrainian Armed Forces achieve an interim victory and drive the aggressor out of the Ukrainian border, or at least to the line controlled by the government as of February 23.

In this case, an agreement with Russia is possible. It should also include other elements: for example, a peacekeeping mission (for example, from the UN) at the border.

However, even in this scenario, changing the Constitution remains completely unrealistic. In the Verkhovna Rada, the refusal from NATO should be supported by 300 votes, and the current composition of the Verkhovna Rada completely rules out this number can be ensured. Given that Russians are ousted from the country, many MPs will ask the question: why should we comply with Russian demands? Even the ruling party will not be united in supporting such a decision.

Finally, the third option is fundamentally different: abandoning NATO without changing the Constitution.

It is the only theoretically real one, so it should be considered separately.

NATO decision to satisfy Russia

We do not consider the scenario of usurpation of power, repeal of the Constitution, etc. Ukraine is a democracy with strong opposition and a strong public mood against autocracy. 

However, the West itself can do this "dirty work".

For example, the North Atlantic Council may abandon its previous decision that "Ukraine will become a member of NATO", ceasing to recognize us as an aspirant country and making a public pledge not to resume membership talks in future. 

This will practically invalidate "NATO" provisions of the Ukrainian Constitution, bypassing the procedure for its changes.

However, there is a key condition.

Without the consent of Ukraine, the Alliance will never do anything like that.

It will be electoral suicide for the US governments and many other nations - their constituencies will see it as a surrender to Russia. Secondly, let us not forget that decisions in the Alliance are taken by consensus. Lithuania or Poland will block a decision to betray Ukraine's interests.

However, if it is Kyiv who asks to take this step, the attitude may be completely different.

For example, if the President, the Prime Minister and the Speaker jointly address such request to NATO, explaining that it is a condition of a peace agreement with Russia, the Alliance may agree, turning a blind eye to different position of Ukraine's parliamentary opposition and part of the society.

In this scenario, the main challenge for the authorities will be to ensure that public outrage is limited, the agreement has at least shaky legitimacy, and security conditions allow us to say that there is no serious military threat to Ukraine right now.

Because of this, such an agreement seems real only if Russia hopelessly loses its military position. For example, when Russian troops are pushed back to the Ukrainian borders. Instead, in the current circumstances, Putin's demands will be unacceptable to most Ukrainians - for example, they will undoubtedly include the recognition of Kyiv's loss of some territory, at least Crimea and part of Donbas. Such a deal will be perceived by society as a surrender and "will not fly".

Ukrainians believe in victory and are not ready to surrender. 

The agreement without public legitimacy will be void and may cause political instability.

President's Office understands this very well - not for nothing did President Zelensky declare his readiness to consult with the people ("hold a referendum").

Meanwhile, it looks like some political players close to President Zelenskyi are getting ready for this scenario. We see actions and statements discrediting NATO and preemptively preparing the country for such a scenario, often based on false claims. 

The myth of "weak NATO"

"If Ukraine was a member of NATO, the war would not have started." 

This is a statement by Zelensky in an interview with CNN at the end of last week. The President said the similar many times before the invasion, too.

But shortly after the start of negotiations with Russia, the new message evolved. Kyiv is pushing a narrative that Ukraine does not need NATO, because the Alliance is "weak" and allegedly does not intend to defend its members in the event of Russian aggression. 

These two statements are mutually exclusive.

There is every reason to believe that the first is sincere and the second is deliberately untrue. Because the reality is that the member states of the Alliance have everything that Ukraine wants. Air defence systems, Allied army "on the ground" in the eastern members of the Alliance, constant air patrols, Article 5 on collective defence...

Joint defence actions of Allies are even more eloquent. 

In January-February, with the growing threat, foreigners withdrew from Ukraine their military instructors, diplomats, etc. Instead, in Poland and the Baltic states, the military presence of allies is only growing. This has been happening in the last week, too, despite the growing chance of Russia's attack and direct threats from the Russian leadership towards, for example, Poland.

So, the assumption that NATO will not protect Eastern Allies in the event of Putin's attack is groundless.

Even Hungarian reluctance won't stop it.

In recent days, a half-joke has become popular that "Hungarians will leave NATO in the event of a Russian attack on Poland." Orban's government has done everything to look so. The disgraceful attitude to Russian aggression, the ban on even the transit of weapons through its territory gives every reason to doubt that this NATO member is keen on the Alliance values.

Fortunately, the collective defence system is built in such a way that small member states (enjoying a veto right in the current affairs) can't block the Alliance's joint response to an attack if it is real. Instead of this, countries like Hungary can avoid hostilities in another way. Although Article 5 of the NATO Treaty speaks of an "attack on all", it does not oblige them to respond equally (after all, what could be the similarity in the response of Luxembourg and Iceland compared to the United States?).

Therefore, Hungary's response may be different. Budapest can ruin its image on the part of other allies and limit itself with only symbolic gestures, but it cannot block the Alliance's military response in the event of an attack by the Russian army on Lithuania or Poland.

The joint defence of the Alliance will work - with or without the military participation of Hungary.

This makes Baltic states and Poland feel convinced they won't stay alone.

And there is only one reason why Ukraine does not have these privileges: because we are not yet a member of the Alliance. The United States and others have no obligation to protect us.

Yes, it is possible (and necessary!) to reproach the allies that they do not realize the level of Putin's madness convincing that they should do more to support us. But we should not forget that every state and every defence union must, first of all, defend its borders and avoid war on its territory. That is what NATO is doing.

The myth "we will never be admitted into the Alliance!"

This is another argument that we hear, including from the President himself. Vladimir Zelensky says NATO leaders told that to him in closed-door talks.

We say with confidence: this is not true.

No, Ukraine has not heard from any European and North American official or NATO representatives that we will never be a NATO member. 

Position of the NATO is the opposite. The decisions of the Alliance summits include more and more ambitious wording on Ukraine. Within the development of a new NATO Strategic Concept, there is already a discussion about what could be the way to accession to the Alliance of states with the occupied territories (legally it is possible).

Ukrainian MFA and Bankova are also aware of this.

Yes, not everything is cloudless.

For example, incumbent US President Joe Biden is opposed to quick enlargement, Germany "behaves like Germany", too. So, NATO's door is open, but it seemed a matter of very long-term perspective until recently.

However, now everything is changed rapidly.

The reason is that the door to another organization, the European Union, was finally opened for Ukraine.

Brussels has started an accelerated consideration of our accession application. In a few months, we should get the status of a candidate state and, in case the hot phase of the war is over, we will start accession negotiations (see the details in the article "Ukraine's Road to Candidacy: Details of the Commission Plan to Move Ukraine Closer to the EU"). After that, accession timing will be set primarily by the speed of reforms carried out by our state.

But the fact is that accession to NATO and the EU is closely linked. This connection is not formal, as they are two different organizations, but the political reality is different. No wonder all the countries of Eastern Europe moved to them in parallel.

The European Union is about the economy and business. It gives an economic boost, facilitates trade and capital movements. It also facilitates investment. But it is important for investors not only to have economic protection, the rule of law and so on. They need to know that their investments are physically protected. Especially in Eastern Europe. Especially in Ukraine.

German, French, Dutch etc. investments in the Ukrainian market will need protection. And this business need will destroy the political arguments against our NATO membership in Berlin, Paris or The Hague, once EU accession head into the homestretch. The same way as it happened in Baltic states.

Therefore, the closer is our accession to the EU, the closer is prospects of NATO membership. Moreover, due to differences in procedures, we will likely join the Alliance even earlier than the EU.

There is one condition, yet: if the government and society of Ukraine do not give it up now, fulfilling the Kremlin's ultimatum.

Of course, to continue moving towards both NATO and the EU, it is necessary to either de-occupy or cement the contact line with an occupied part of Ukraine. There is no room for reforms with active hostilities, like the shellings of Mariupol or Chernihiv, etc.; defence remains the only priority. 

Myth "NATO does not help us"

This accusation is particularly common, and it is particularly strange to hear it, given that the Armed Forces have been defending us for four weeks, not least thanks to many years of cooperation with NATO.

The courage and patriotism of our soldiers are vital, but not enough to fight the aggressor, who does not spare people and equipment to conquer Ukraine.

Fortunately, the courage of the Armed Forces is complemented by the technology and training in line with NATO standards that preceded the invasion. Ukraine is now fighting with NATO weapons and receiving real-time NATO intelligence. As a result, the losses of our military in combat are much lower than on the Russian side.

Let's start with intelligence. 

Intelligence data is sensitive, and it is seldom shared with partners outside the defence alliance, particularly given the amount of data exchange Ukraine enjoys today.

Kyiv has been coming to this for a long time. Advisers from the Allies worked in the MoD, the General Staff and other Ukrainian defense and security bodies. It took us years to prove we are a reliable security partner that does not allow data leakage. Having not done this, we would not enjoy it.

Now about the weapons.

Some in Ukraine say, "all the weapons are provided by the member states, while the Alliance itself has not given us weapons." The first part of this statement is true, although very simplified. But in overall, it is wrong.

Yes, the material supply of weapons is made by the Member States. NATO cannot supply anything because it does not possess any weaponry, air defence system, fighter, or attack aircraft. NATO's role is that of coordination.

Thus criticizing the non-supplies of weapons by the organization is manipulation.

At the same time, the fact that we receive weapons from member states has a lot to do with our long-standing cooperation with the Alliance. It's public knowledge that Ukraine gets not only rifles and shells but, more importantly, high-precision and state-of-the-art weapons, in hight numbers. This would not have been possible without the Allies' confidence in how the military processes in the Armed Forces of Ukraine are organized. And it was the Alliance in charge of helping to reform our army, its logistics, command and control, communications, etc. since 2014.

Let's repeat what was already said: there are a lot of reasons to blame the Alliance. NATO can be criticized for indecision, timidity, reluctance to go beyond its borders. However, this criticism also applies equally to its members - the United States, Britain, Poland and others. Because it is their indecision, timidity, reluctance. The Alliance and its members share the negative as well as the positive.

Instead, critics are trying to blame everything bad on NATO and attribute all the good to the Allies. This is manipulation.

Is there an alternative to NATO?

We have heard from those advocating a decision to give up NATO aspirations that under the peace deal with Russia, Ukraine will create a new defence union that will provide us with defence guarantees. They say, it will not less as strong guarantees as provided by Art. 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

But this promise is naive.

Indeed, NATO won't integrate Ukraine during the war, but any other security alliance won't do it, either! Security guarantees provided during an armed confrontation would mean automatic involvement in the war.

If the United States, Poland, or Britain were willing to join the war on our side, they would not need any new alliance. NATO nations are free to decide for themselves and may do so without the consent of Allies. And in practice, unfortunately, they do not even want to provide us with tanks or military jets.

So now the maximum possible "guarantees" that we can get is a piece of paper like the Budapest Memorandum.

And the fact that Ukraine wast to have both China and Russia among these "guarantors" makes it look like "new Budapest", too. A security union in which the "guarantors" promising to protect Ukraine will be the enemy states, China and the United States, as well as Russia, is nonsense. This structure is unlikely to work even on paper.

Also, the United States will hardly agree to a binding document in this format. Joe Biden has publicly called Putin a war criminal. Would he agree to sign an agreement with him on the joint defence of Ukraine? The question is rhetorical.

Yes, we should agree with the words of Kuleba, Zelensky and others that the world security architecture will need to be rebuilt after the war.

The world has changed, many institutions have proven that they do not fit the new reality. The UN Security Council has lost its effectiveness. The OSCE can be safely eliminated as a security platform if it is not reformed. Deep reform of NATO or the creation of new security alliances is not ruled out.

But all this will be possible only after peace is achieved.

The outcome of Russia's war against the West, which is currently underway on Ukrainian territory, has not yet been determined. It is unknown to what extent it will grow, what will be its consequences and so on. For this reason, it is impossible to sketch the outlines of world architecture and find the most effective place for Ukraine.

Instead, Ukrainian leaders are now proposing to abandon NATO with its joint defence in favour of the unknown, and to be satisfied with "security guarantees" from an almost certainly ineffective structure with antagonists (USA, Russia and China) in its composition. If such a decision is made, much of society will see it as a surrender, even against the backdrop of the NATO discredit campaign we are now witnessing.

There is a chance that all this is just a negotiation strategy, winning time during the dialogue with Russia. But it's important not to destroy relations and mutual trust with NATO in this game.

And finally. It is essential to understand that even before our accession, NATO is helping Ukraine not only with weapons.

Our move to the Alliance is a path of reform that changes the country, including its security sector and intelligence, makes them more effective, and implements the best practices of NATO nations. To abandon this in the face of the Russian threat (which will not disappear even after a peace treaty) - is certainly not the best solution.

Sergiy Sydorenko, Hanna Shelest