On 2 December , 2024, the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement reaffirming that there is no alternative to Ukraine’s NATO membership and that no security guarantees can replace it. This position is framed by two key developments: first, Ukraine losing more territory amid an escalation in the war; and second, former U.S. President Donald Trump’s campaign promise to seek a settlement to end the conflict. These evolving dynamics raise numerous questions, reflecting a return to square one in the war, as indicated by official Ukrainian statements. Briefly, the root cause of the conflict lies in Ukraine’s declaration of its intent to join NATO, a move Russia opposed. While Russia had previously accepted NATO’s expansion to include former Soviet republics, the Ukrainian case is distinct due to its geographic position and status as a “buffer state” of significant size. Russia views NATO membership for Ukraine as unacceptable.

The collapse of political dialogue between Western nations and Russia resulted in the ongoing war in Ukraine. What are the positions of the three main parties—Ukraine, Russia, and NATO—and how do they influence future negotiations?

For NATO, there has been no significant change in its stance on Ukraine’s membership aspirations, even with the appointment of a new Secretary General. Mark Rutte, NATO’s Secretary General, stated, “Ukraine is not in a strong enough position to negotiate an agreement with Russia. It needs to be stronger, and allies must provide it with weapons for this purpose. NATO cannot deploy forces in the region to avoid a direct confrontation with Russia.” These remarks reflect NATO’s consistent position of avoiding direct war with Russia. However, questions remain about the extent and effectiveness of continued support for Ukraine in strengthening its position. Despite the substantial support Ukraine has received, it has not translated into decisive military operations on the ground.

Ukraine’s position fluctuates with the situation on the battlefield. With Russia controlling numerous Ukrainian territories, President Volodymyr Zelensky proposed that the current military confrontation could end if Ukraine secures NATO membership and activates the provisions of the Budapest Memorandum on security guarantees. Signed in 1994 by Russia, Ukraine, the U.S., and the U.K., the memorandum stipulated Ukraine’s nuclear disarmament in exchange for security guarantees.

Western strategies from the outset sought to avoid direct military confrontation with Russia, instead aiming to drain Russian power in Ukraine. However, this approach may have been misguided, as indicators suggest that Russia can sustain the war for years without significant strain. Additionally, nuclear deterrence plays a critical role in assessing the conflict. Western assistance to Ukraine remains a contentious issue, debated not only within Western nations but also in light of Russia’s ability to maintain control over large Ukrainian areas.

As the war approaches its third year, it underscores five key points:

1. NATO recognizes Russia as a significant nuclear and conventional power, which cannot be underestimated.
2. The conflict highlights Europe’s security vulnerability. Efforts to establish an independent European security mechanism separate from NATO have largely failed, and U.S. demands for NATO members to allocate 2% of GDP to defense remain pressing.
3. The war reflects the broader push for a multipolar world order, which, while not imminent, has intensified international competition and alignments.
4. Balancing national interests with regional dynamics, particularly in maintaining power balances, remains crucial.
5. Ultimately, the military situation on the ground will decisively shape the negotiations and agreements resulting from this conflict.

The most significant challenge in the context of this crisis remains NATO’s desire to expand and include new countries within a defined membership framework as the world’s strongest military alliance since the Cold War era. This is met with Russian opposition to further NATO encirclement of regions it considers strategically important for its national security. Undoubtedly, an Atlantic-Russian dialogue has become urgently needed again, particularly through the reactivation of the NATO-Russia Council, which was established in 2002 as a mechanism for dialogue between the two sides. It aimed to address all cooperative and contentious issues but ceased its activities shortly before the start of the war in Ukraine.

While the Atlantic-Russian conflict is not a recent development, the key question is: under what conditions might Ukraine agree to end this war, especially given NATO’s affirmation that Ukraine’s membership is not a current priority and the West’s hesitation to continue providing military support to Ukraine? Moreover, former U.S. President Donald Trump’s emphasis on ending this war adds another layer of complexity.

All these interrelated issues are profoundly intricate. Nonetheless, regardless of how this war ends, it offers numerous lessons, not only for European countries but also for many so-called “buffer states.

Note: This article has been automatically translated, the full article is available in Arabic.

Source: Akhbar Al Khaleej