In our Twitter space dedicated to the NATO summit and Ukraine, we talked to Daria Kaleniuk.
Daria Kaleniuk is Executive Director at the Anticorruption Action Center and co-founder of the International Center for Ukrainian Victory.
Here are her key messages on the summit’s outcomes so far:
- The language of the summit communique is not what Ukraine expected. Ukrainians are disappointed - but not discouraged. Still, Ukraine had hoped that NATO was a bloc led by bravery, but it appears that NATO is led by fear.
- Ukraine cannot understand why NATO is so hesitant to invite Ukraine, since it would not mean that NATO would immediately be at war with Russia. Also, membership would not be immediate -- there would be reforms and other procedures, but Ukrainians would see the "open doors" they have been hearing about since 2008.
- At the same time, it is a very positive result for the Kremlin. Russia is encouraged to keep bluffing, resorting to nuclear blackmail, spreading propaganda and disinformation, as well as making the West fear the escalation of the war or the fallout of Russia's potential collapse
- Ukraine now has three options to ensure its own security: to become a NATO member state thus coming under the nuclear umbrella; having NATO MSs deploy their nuclear weapons in Ukraine (mirroring Russia's actions in Belarus) or pursuing the nuclear path itself.
- In the last two centuries, Russia waged wars every 5-7 years. If Russia lost a war the next one would be delayed, but in case of a victory, a next iteration would follow shortly.
- This means that Russia will not stop unless it is fully defeated in the battlefield and deprived of access to its money abroad, as well as to supply chains of critical materials that are vital for Russia's economy.
- Hence, the path to the end of this war consists in three elements: Russia's defeat in the battlefield, reinforcement of sanctions and a clear NATO membership perspective -- which could be given at the current summit, but was so far not.
To listen to the Twitter Space:
