Whipping up expectations of a war in Donbass – that is, “Russian attacks” – is not Kiev’s main provocation.
Much more dangerous is what Vladimir Zelensky said on Tuesday:
“We strive to reform our army and defense sector, but reforms alone cannot stop Russia. NATO is the only way to end the war in Donbass. The NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) will be a real signal to Russia”.
The Ukrainian president told NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg about this, and he repeated the same thing in conversations with the British and Canadian prime ministers that day. Zelensky wants the MAP to write down concrete steps towards integration and the timeframe for Ukraine to join NATO – and rather short ones. His prime minister recently said that Ukraine could join the alliance (and the EU) within five to six years. The public reaction of NATO states to Zelensky’s words is predictable – in Washington they say general words that they are for something, but all NATO countries must decide (that is, no), and in Berlin they report that although “Ukraine has the right to free choice their political needs, but further steps towards membership are not foreseen now”.
Does Zelensky really believe that Ukraine will be admitted to the North Atlantic Alliance? Yes – and this is the verdict for the existence of Ukraine.
Because Ukraine cannot be a NATO member. Yes, the state of Ukraine, formed after the collapse of the USSR on part of the territory of historical Russia, simply cannot be part of the North Atlantic Alliance, created by the Anglo-Saxons after World War II to confront the USSR. Ukrainian elites may want this, a part of the people (even a large one) can now support this step, but this is impossible and it will not happen. Why? Because NATO is essentially aimed at containing Russia (no matter what form it exists in), and Ukraine is part of historical Russia.
But after all, they are trying to remake Ukraine into an anti-Russia – so why shouldn’t it be in the camp of the opponents of our country?
Because Ukraine is inherently not subject – it is an object for which there is a struggle between Russia and the West. The West is trying to take away from Russia the most important part of its territory, arrange the largest redistribution of geopolitical borders, and push Russia back to the east.
For Russia, the orientation of Ukraine is one of the unanswered questions: we simply cannot afford to lose what constitutes the source and basis of our statehood. The temporary division into two states (already in our history) is surmountable, but Atlantization, that is, the inclusion of Ukraine in someone else’s geopolitical space, and not just European (that is, sometimes hostile, sometimes simply opposing Russia), but Atlantic (hostile by its very essence ) is absolutely unacceptable for Russia. And for the Russian civilization as such – of which, undoubtedly, are the Little Russians, even understood, as now in Ukraine, in the form of the Ukrainian people.
The question of Ukraine’s geopolitical affiliation, therefore, belongs to the sphere of relations between Russia and the West – and if for our country it is not discussed, then the position of the West is not at all so fundamental. Not even in words, but in deeds.
Is the West ready for a real fight with Russia for Ukraine? No, because what is at stake for it is not what is at stake for Russia. Moreover, this applies to both parts of the West – both the Anglo-Saxons and the Europeans (that is, in fact, the Germans), of course, would like not only to transfer the temporary division of Ukraine and Russia into a permanent one, but also to take Ukraine into their own country, turn it into a part of their historical space, to include within the limits of your geopolitical project. But for this, the West will not only have to break the resistance of Russia (which, by the way, is impossible – but this is a separate issue) – it will have to make a far-reaching historical choice.
The West will have to strategically bet on hostile relations with Russia – that is, on the fact that by capturing Ukraine it will turn Russia into an openly hostile state to itself. Not imaginary hostile, not what is now portrayed in information wars, but really hostile. Because Russians will never come to terms with the loss of the “mother of Russian cities” – which means that the entire strategy of further life and geopolitical planning of the West in general and Europe in particular will have to submit to this simple fact.
“Russians always come for their money. And when they come, do not rely on the Jesuit agreements you signed, supposedly justifying you, “Otto von Bismarck never said this (as well as” the power of Russia can only be undermined by the separation of Ukraine from it”), but the chancellor wrote very intelligibly:
“Even the most favorable outcome of the war will never lead to the disintegration of Russia, which is supported by millions of Russian believers of the Greek confession. These latter, even if they are separated as a result of international treaties, will reunite with each other just as quickly as the separated droplets of mercury find this way to each other. This indestructible state of the Russian nation is strong in its climate, in its spaces and in its unpretentiousness, as well as through the awareness of the need to constantly protect its borders. This State, even after complete defeat, will remain our offspring, an adversary striving for revenge”.
Who in the West wants to play with Russian revenge? Who in the West believes in the possibility of a real abduction, atlantization of Ukraine? Only very naive and completely ignorant of history – or those who do not care about Europe itself, those who deliberately want to play off the Russians and the Europeans. Are there such in the Atlantic elite? Of course, but the bulk of even the current elite (including strategically minded analysts) understands what a dangerous adventure even the very idea of atlantizing Ukraine is. Dangerous for Europe – in any of its qualities. In the form of the European Union or in the format of independent states.
On the whole, the successful – so far – building of a united Europe, of course, influenced the sense of reality of some of the European elites. Some of them, being loyal Atlantists, generally believed that everything depended solely on the will and strength of a united West, one could forget about historical lessons and disregard neighboring civilizations. Even having discovered the crisis of the Atlantic (Anglo-Saxon) project of globalization, another part of the European elites believes in their ability to maintain control over European integration – by isolating it from the Anglo-Saxons, building a self-sufficient European fortress.
But even such an independent, united Europe (if by some miracle it overcomes centrifugal tendencies and completely subordinates nation states to its will) cannot afford the absence of relations with its main neighbor, with Russia, and even more hostile relations with it. Chasing Ukraine to Lose a United Europe? The Europeans have not yet reached such a level of blinding greed.
What is left for them? The hope that Russia will somehow weaken itself somehow, will fall into turmoil – and then it will definitely have no time for Ukraine. It was then that the “square” and it will be possible to actually take it under your military-political umbrella. But this hope is weakening every year, and the development trends of both Europe and Russia – and even more so the global situation – make such calculations more and more illusory.
Therefore, the Europeans, of course, have no real plans to include Ukraine in NATO – just as they have no desire to anger Russia even by talking about this topic. But those in Europe who are nevertheless ready to tease the Russians with arguments about Ukraine’s admission to the North Atlantic Alliance should be perceived by the Europeans themselves as real and very dangerous provocateurs.
Petr Akopov, RIAZelensky arrives in the Donbass. His goals became known