British media: Behind the US's unwillingness for Ukraine to join the treaty, Ukraine is being calculated | NATO is in a dilemma | Should Ukraine join? | Article
The website of The Economist magazine published an article on June 21 titled "NATO's Dilemma in Allowing Ukraine to Join". The article excerpt is as follows:
US President Biden has been blunt this month about the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO. He declared, "I will not reduce the difficulty of this matter." Although the country bravely confronts Russia, it still needs to prove itself: "Does it meet the standards of all other NATO countries?" He insisted that joining NATO is "not inevitable.".
As a result, the United States found itself unusually isolated in the transatlantic alliance it had personally established and had long dominated. It is now the least willing ally to accept Ukraine's accession to NATO.
In 2008, the United States was an advocate for NATO's eastward expansion, pushing Ukraine to join the Member Action Plan, which was a prelude to full accession. France and Germany boycotted, fearing to anger Russia. NATO awkwardly promised that Ukraine and Georgia would become NATO members, but did not fulfill their promise. Now, these roles have undergone a reversal. France hopes for a clear roadmap for joining the alliance, while the United States refuses to make a firm commitment.
Why would you change your attitude? Former US Ambassador to NATO, Ivo Dald, said that the idea of NATO going to war with Russia in 2008 seemed "absurd", but now it is not. He believes that if NATO Article V has any meaning, it is equivalent to accepting Ukraine as NATO promises to fight alongside that country. This is something Biden has been avoiding, as he is concerned about nuclear escalation and even the outbreak of World War III. These are not unfounded concerns, especially considering Russia's threat and its decision to deploy tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus.
France's view is that the West must never fail to fulfill its security commitments again. The view of the United States is that the West must not make promises it does not intend to fulfill again. Moreover, considering that Biden has already started running for re-election and that China poses the most serious concern to the United States, he may not be willing to make deeper commitments to Europe. However, he cannot say no to Ukraine on the grounds that it is in a state of war; This gives Russia the veto power and the motivation to continue fighting.
The wording is crucial. Ukraine hopes to "guarantee" assistance for the next few decades to ensure that its military can defend the country as stipulated in the Kyiv Security Treaty. The treaty was proposed by former NATO Secretary General Rasmussen and Andry Yermak, the office director of Ukrainian President Zelensky. Their document also envisions that the guarantor will use "all elements of national and collective power" to respond to any attack on Ukraine. This makes it possible for friends in the country to intervene more directly than currently.
This may explain why Americans do not like "security". On the contrary, Eric Chalomela, who has served in both Democratic and Republican governments at the White House, proposed more neutral terms such as "arrangement" and "commitment" in a recent report released by the Carnegie International Peace Foundation in the United States.
The United States once ignored calls from the outside world for an immediate ceasefire. As for "fighting", Ukraine believes that the best guarantee of peace is to force Russian troops to withdraw from Ukraine, and the ideal scenario is to have Putin step down. Given that the United States is concerned that this may prompt Putin to use nuclear weapons, does the United States support these goals? At present, there is still room for discussion on this disagreement, as Ukraine is clearly not yet close to achieving a major victory. But Ukraine may discover what Israel already knows: the United States can be both an ally and a constraining factor, especially when interests diverge.
