Zelenskyy's behavior and what really happened in Vilnius

Zelensky hoped for more precise positive signals for Ukraine and tougher ones for Russia.

Read also: Czech President’s statement at NATO event reveals Western secrets, claims Ukrainian diplomat

On the way to Vilnius, Volodymyr Zelenskyy mercilessly criticized partners who are discussing the prospects of Ukraine's NATO membership without Ukraine. We'll see how politically effective this step was. Let me remind you that Zelenskyy is the first Ukrainian president in all the years of independence who is unafraid to criticize our partners. And it's not just now. In 2021, he surprised many people when he criticized Biden and Merkel for their position on the Nordstream pipelines. There was criticism for the delay in supplying weapons to Ukraine. There was criticism for the delay in delivering Patriot systems, tanks, and F-16s. What do we see now? The red lines for Patriot systems, tanks, and F-16s have been crossed. Therefore, in many cases, criticism of our partners works.

Another thing is that, yes, what happened was a very emotional statement. Very emotional. It reflects the public mood in Ukraine, the attitude of many Ukrainians still waiting for an invitation. Yes, everyone understands, and the President's Office understood perfectly well, that there could be no direct invitation, let alone immediate accession to NATO. First, there is no such thing as immediate accession. There are specific procedures. Even we have seen from the example of Finland's rapid accession, and then the more problematic accession of Sweden, that it can take a year or more, even on a fast track. But that was the mood we were in. Zelensky, as is often the case, is a reproducer and resonator of these sentiments. He transmits them.

These were the right signals to send to our partners. Another thing is that everything is good in moderation. We cannot have severe confrontations with our partners now. When Zelenskyy arrived in Vilnius, there was a very warm meeting, and Zelensky gave a speech at a concert supporting Ukraine. He felt the support of the Lithuanian people. Then there was a dinner meeting with NATO leaders in the evening.

NATO must formulate its attitude towards Ukraine so that the Kremlin does not doubt the inevitability of Ukraine's accession to NATO. Unfortunately, how this was done in the communiqué leaves room for different interpretations. Russia can perceive it as an opportunity to continue influencing NATO's policy toward Ukraine or to drag out the war indefinitely. This is the problem.

So I don't see what happened as a tragedy or a big problem. There is some reason for disappointment. But let's compare the situation with what happened before. If we look at the dynamics of our relations with NATO, we see a big step forward and an acceleration of our movement towards NATO. Just for comparison, let’s look at 2008. The Bucharest NATO summit is famous. We and Georgia were denied action plans for NATO membership. In 2021, less than a year before the great war with Russia, Ukraine literally begged for a NATO Membership Action Plan. There was no response from NATO.

Thanks to Ukraine's active diplomatic work, this MAP is no longer relevant. A few days before the summit, the United States almost publicly insisted that Ukraine should have the MAP. But the active work of Ukrainian diplomacy, President Zelenskyy's tough stance, and the position of our friends in NATO eventually yielded results. The MAP is no longer necessary, although some reforms will still be needed. In particular, let me remind you that we still have the issue of reforming the SBU.

Zelenskyy hoped he could push for more at the last minute. It's a matter of sending clearer positive signals for Ukraine and more formidable signals to Russia. That's what we were hoping for. At the end of last week, Zelenskyy publicly appealed to Biden, who was already on his way to Europe, that Ukraine should be invited to join NATO.

Read also: Zelenskyy proposes to carry on with Black Sea grain deal without Russia

Ukraine's position, let me remind you, was not about immediate accession to NATO. No. Everyone is aware that this is politically and procedurally impossible, and even more so in a time of war. The goal was an official invitation but with an open date. That is, the actual enrollment is to begin later, after the war is over. This is what they were talking about. So it's not just this statement. There was pressure on Biden before. I also noticed the purpose of Zelenskyy's visits to Bulgaria, where Sofia signed a declaration of support for Ukraine's Euro-Atlantic aspirations, then Czechia, Slovakia, and Turkey, where Erdogan also publicly supported Ukraine's Euro-Atlantic aspirations.

It was also a form of pressure on Biden to force him to make some concessions on the issue of Ukraine's membership in NATO. We made some concessions. We have overcome the position on the MAP, so there is a result. It is a limited result but a positive one. Zelensky wanted more. He is generally a maximalist, an emotional person. He does not play with these diplomatic steps. He sometimes likes to say it straight to the point.

The question is: why, then, is Volodymyr Zelenskyy not a maximalist in terms of implementing reforms? I've already said that reforms are necessary. What is the problem with delaying the SBU reform? I'll be frank. The problem is not in the President, but in the intelligence community. The problem did not arise under Zelenskyy. The issue of reforming the SBU has been raised repeatedly since 2014. Both Poroshenko and Zelensky faced this problem. I'm familiar with the situation, and I can tell you there is coordinated, tough opposition from representatives of various special services. The coordination is still ongoing. This is the first explanation.

Read also: West seeks to contain Russian influence as tensions rise over Ukraine – diplomat on NATO Summit

The second may surprise you. When some Eastern European countries were admitted to NATO, such as Bulgaria, Romania, or in the Balkans, especially Albania, the situation with governance, the rule of law, and corruption was no better than in Ukraine. So the question is not about reforms. Now, the critical obstacle is the issue of war.

Ukraine needs to carry out reforms, no doubt about it, but the key obstacle is the war and the White House's fear that if they give Ukraine a clear signal about NATO membership now, it could lead to an escalation of the war or prolong it. They are most concerned about the risk of NATO getting involved in the war and are open about it. So this is the problem, not the need for more reforms.

What was the Kremlin's attitude to the results of the Vilnius summit? This is one of the critical problems now, because if no decisive steps are taken toward Ukraine, Russia also realizes that Ukraine will not enter NATO while there is still a war. They can drag out the war even in a low-intensity, limited-intensity mode, as in Donbas after 2015. This is also a risk. In addition, there was a negative experience after the Bucharest Summit. Many Western political and military experts are now writing about this.

Read also: Kremlin cancels grain deal, MH17 anniversary, problems in Russian command

This opinion is dominant, that there was a mistake in Bucharest. If Ukraine remains in the gray security zone, it will not reduce the risks of war with Russia. On the contrary, it will constantly renew them. The threat of a new war will be constantly present and may even increase. So there is a real problem here. Russia is now reacting to this summit with great restraint. If you read unofficial statements, for example, Telegram channels of pro-government or anti-Ukrainian people, there is anxiety. There is an understanding, and it is already obvious, that Ukraine's movement toward NATO is gradual and progressive, and I think this trend will not change.

It's just a matter of time. They see this. The Kremlin is also reacting with restraint. They are scaring the West just in case and threatening it more through unofficial channels. They publicly state that if Ukraine moves toward NATO, it means the risks of World War III, a clash, and so on. But the situation is different from what it was in 2008. Firstly, there is no Russian presence at this summit. Secondly, and most importantly, Russia is now seen as NATO's main rival on the European continent and in the current situation.

Read also: US State Department spokesperson explains her country’s stance on Ukraine’s NATO accession

Strategically, the United States is more concerned about China. But today, the more immediate focus is Russia and the challenges from Russia. That is why they are strengthening NATO's eastern flank, and the issue of supporting Ukraine is considered in this context. That's why they even wanted to keep this summit a little quiet in Russia, not to focus so much attention on it. Of course, the propagandists used this topic, but the attitude towards the summit is restrained, an attitude of concern, if I generalize the essence of it.

We’re bringing the voice of Ukraine to the world. Support us with a one-time donation, or become a Patron!

Read the original article on The New Voice of Ukraine