Perhaps Zaluzhnyy spoke about NATO too emotionally and categorically. But it seems this issue has been weighing on him.

Zaluzhnyy began to be accused of making a political statement that contradicts the Constitution of Ukraine—that the Ukrainian ambassador cannot make such statements, and so on.

It is unlikely that Valeriy Fedorovich had such extraordinary intentions. It was definitely not a political statement. He expressed his personal opinion during a discussion on Euro-Atlantic integration at a meeting of ambassadors in Kyiv. That’s what a discussion is for—so that different opinions can be expressed.

Perhaps Zaluzhnyy spoke too emotionally and categorically. Still, we must remember the classic rule: Never say “never”! But it seems that Valery Fedorovich had been bottling this up for a while. He has repeatedly expressed his skepticism about NATO’s current state in his speeches and publications. And here, it seems, he finally snapped and voiced everything he had been thinking for some time. A typical politician would never have done that. But Zaluzhnyy acted as a competent military expert and a responsible citizen; he honestly outlined his vision for our future relations with NATO.

A politician would have said what people want to hear—something that has almost become an icon. Zaluzhnyy, however, gave a realistic assessment of NATO’s current state and articulated a pragmatic position on our next steps. And this did not sit well with those who wish to remain comfortably ensconced in the outdated stereotypes of classical Euro-Atlantic integration. Valeriy Zaluzhnyy spoke honestly about what experts had already begun to ponder but were afraid to voice aloud—because they feared condemnation.

Perhaps unwittingly, Zaluzhnyy sparked a discussion about what our future international security strategy should look like.

In his remarks during a discussion at the ambassadors’ meeting, he emphasized that the Alliance operates according to doctrines dating back to World War II and, in his view, will not change enough to meet modern challenges for quite some time. The Alliance is adapting slowly to the new realities. Zaluzhnyy also noted that Ukraine should not waste time waiting for political consensus among all NATO member states, but should focus on securing practical security solutions, modern technologies, and the development of flexible military coalitions.

Does this mean a rejection of Euro-Atlantic integration? I don’t think so. Valeriy Zaluzhnyy emphasized that Ukraine needs NATO countries’ technologies, particularly in the areas of missile defense and space capabilities. I would like to add that we must not give up on NATO membership, even in the context of future peace negotiations. Even if we realize that we will not join NATO, we must not abandon our aspiration for NATO membership or impose security restrictions on ourselves. This is part of our security and foreign policy sovereignty, which we cannot relinquish.

But from the perspective of political realities, Zaluzhnyy made the correct assessment. NATO is no longer what we imagined it to be or what we aspired to. The North Atlantic Alliance is currently experiencing the deepest internal crisis in its entire history. By inertia, the Alliance continues to serve as a deterrent against Russia, thanks to the strategic and nuclear capabilities of the United States, above all. However, the United States has already officially warned its European partners that it is transitioning to the NATO 3.0 concept. (NATO 1.0 refers to the Alliance during the Cold War and the confrontation with the USSR; NATO 2.0 refers to the Alliance after the collapse of the USSR, when NATO began to transform into a political rather than a military alliance.) The new concept means that the U.S. will maintain a “nuclear umbrella” over Europe and continue to provide strategic defense, but in the event of a “conventional (i.e., conventional) war,” Europeans will be responsible for their own security. Russia is waging precisely a conventional war against us. This means that in the event of a conventional war by Russia against Poland or the Baltic states, the Americans will not fight against the Russians. The same applies to Ukraine if we become NATO members. And this is a completely different situation than it was before.

As for the very possibility of NATO membership, under Biden we were at least promised the prospect of joining the Alliance after the war ends, but under Trump, this issue is completely off the table. The current U.S. president believes that ruling out Ukraine’s NATO membership is an acceptable and mandatory condition for an agreement to end the Russian-Ukrainian war.

In response to this, one might say that Trump will not be in office forever, and a new president could take office in the U.S. in 2029. That is indeed true, but we do not know who that person will be or what their stance on U.S.-NATO relations will be. However, there are currently—and will continue to be, at least in the medium term—several countries within NATO that could block our membership in the Alliance in order to minimize the risks of a potential war with Russia. Let me remind you that NATO also operates on the principle of consensus, and joining the Alliance requires the consent of all its current members. And this, too, is an objective reality that cannot be ignored. 

One of Zaluzhnyy’s opponents makes a compelling argument: if we reject NATO membership, then we must explain how we will avoid becoming part of Russia. The answer is very simple: Ukraine is not a member of NATO, and it is not known when it will become one—if ever—but we have not become part of Russia; we have stood our ground and have been doing so for four and a half years now without Alliance membership, though with its support, which we do not reject.

Recalling a well-known joke, we need to think not about “checkers” (that is, the ephemeral and symbolic prospect of NATO membership), but about “driving,” that is, ensuring our security needs and a real security partnership. Today, our main security partner—and the financial backer of our security—is the European Union, not NATO, along with certain European countries.

And finally, one more important point. If, in our relations with NATO, we are not merely seeking membership but represent a security necessity for the Alliance itself, then our chances of NATO membership will be much greater. Therefore, we must shift from a position of dependence on NATO to a Ukraine-centric paradigm in the process of shaping Europe’s new security architecture, and toward the gradual formation of new military-political alliances in Europe that would be impossible without Ukraine’s participation. This is precisely what Valerii Zaluzhnyy said during a discussion at the ambassadors’ meeting.

Source