[ad_1]
Although peace seems distant, the United States and Europe are debating how to ensure Ukraine’s security if the war with Russia ends, even without total victory on either side. West Germany could provide a model, a precedent for admitting divided countries into NATO.
Despite its division and its unhappy role as a border between nuclear-armed rivals during the Cold War, West Germany became a member of NATO in 1955, benefiting from the alliance’s protection, without abandoning its commitment to unity, finally realized in 1989.
For Ukraine, much will depend on the form of the battle after the arrival of the counteroffensive, and whether the result leads to some kind of complete ceasefire, a relatively stable border, or even peace talks.
As NATO’s annual summit approaches in July, its members are discussing what Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, who wants more concrete assurances that his country will join the alliance, can offer.
The West German model is gaining traction in some European capitals as a way to provide Ukraine with real security, even if it does not immediately gain all of its territory.
Germany is an example of NATO accepting a country with “significant and unresolved territorial problems” and a form of enemy occupation, said Angela E. Stent, a Russia and Germany expert and author of “Putin’s World.”
“When West Germany joined NATO, there was what could be called a monumental frozen conflict,” he said. “But it was felt to be very important to anchor West Germany in the Western alliance, so West Germany joined in. The Russians complained about it and said it was too dangerous, but they couldn’t stop it.
After World War II, various options were considered as to what to do about occupied and divided Germany, as it is now in Ukraine.
Soviet leaders spoke of a united but neutral Germany, of the Austrian model. But tempted, the Western powers refused. And in fact Ukraine itself initially proposed neutrality after the Russian invasion in February 2022.
Konrad Adenauer, West Germany’s first chancellor, chose security over territory, and Germany supported him, re-electing him until he resigned in 1963.
“Adenauer decided it was more important to have a solid defense agreement with the West and lead West Germany into NATO,” said François Heisbourg, a French defense expert. “This is a brave decision, because it means that unity will not happen easily.”
Ukraine is definitely a different case. When West Germany joined NATO, there was no war with East Germany and the two entities were recognized as individual countries in 1949, said ME Sarotte, author of the diplomatic history, “Not One Inch,” about the expansion of NATO, the reunification of Germany. and Russia’s response.
While the West German Constitution maintains the goal of unification, “the reality on the ground is that what used to be the occupation zone that came out of World War II has become a division of the country,” Ms. Sarot. “While no one is happy about it, you have clear and hard borders, and that gives you a clarity that Ukraine doesn’t have.”
Not at all. But as Charles Kupchan and Richard Haass suggest in a recent essay on Foreign Affairs, few expect a Ukrainian counterattack to drive Russia completely out of Ukraine, including Crimea. If the battle lines harden, they suggest, the United States should push for peace negotiations, even if neither Ukraine nor Russia seem enthusiastic.
It won’t be easy. Ukraine worries that a cease-fire will allow Russian control of much of Ukraine; Russia seems to think it can outpace Western support for Ukraine. Neither side is currently open to talks, and Mr Zelensky, in his own peace plan, has insisted that Russian troops withdraw from all Ukrainian territory.
But as suggested by the battle for Bakhmut, the Russian city claimed to have been captured after almost a year of war, even a modest shift in the front line came at a great cost in life and material.
Some in the West want an endless war, already fearing waning popular support for unlimited funding and shortages in manufacturing the tanks, air defenses and munitions Ukraine needs.
There are various proposals to make Ukraine an indigestible porcupine for Russia, so that it is loaded with sophisticated Western weapons, even if it is not a member of NATO, it can deter Moscow. This is the essence of the idea first proposed by the former NATO secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, and Zelensky’s assistant, Andriy Yermak.
Rasmussen’s idea, which is now favored by NATO, suggests Israel as a model, where Washington’s commitment to continued security is clear even without a special defense treaty. But the problem is clear: Israel has nuclear weapons, while Ukraine does not. Even the bilateral defense commitment of NATO members to Ukraine could still drag the entire alliance into a Russia-Ukraine war in the future.
So many officials and analysts believe, as Kaja Kallas, the prime minister of Estonia, said in a recent interview, that the only real security for Ukraine is NATO membership, “when the situation allows.”
At the alliance summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, in July, Ms. Kallas said, NATO should create a more concrete road map for Ukraine to join, reconfirming the first promise made in 2008.
“The only guarantee of security for Ukraine is NATO membership,” he said, noting that membership gives the small country its own protection. “We don’t have a war here because we are members of NATO,” he said.
Another benefit, he said, is that having Ukraine in NATO would be “cheaper, much cheaper” than creating a military hedgehog for the next 50 years.
The counterargument, which is widely held in Washington and Western Europe, is that NATO cannot accept a country in a war over disputed territory, and that this step could push Russia to advance, even with nuclear weapons, before Ukraine can join the alliance. But so far, Russia’s threat of escalation has proved empty.
Now, before the summit, NATO countries are preparing a medium-term plan of pragmatic military assistance to Ukraine, including guaranteed arms supplies and further integration into the NATO world. But Mr Zelensky wants political promises he can take home.
However, if the war does not ultimately result in the withdrawal and defeat of Russia on a large scale, what could prove that Mr. Zelensky and the Ukrainians – given the most influential peace talks – will be NATO members, behind a solid armistice line, perhaps patrolled, Mr. Heisbourg suggested, by a coalition of peacekeeping forces from NATO and other countries, like India or even China.
This will be accompanied by a promise, as in Germany, that the full reunification of Ukraine will remain an immediate issue in the future. NATO membership will strengthen peace and allow reconstruction, private investment and the return of many refugees.
If only there was a truce, Ms. Stent said. “There is no real resolution to this war, you never know when it will start again.”
“But the whole purpose of taking Ukraine into NATO is to make sure that Russia doesn’t attack Ukraine again,” he said, “because what we’ve seen in this war is that NATO is the only form of deterrence that we can do. away against Russia.”
[ad_2]
Source link