TheMalcontent
patreon
Russian- Ukraine War Flash Report - July 11, 2023 12:30 PDT - Disappointment in Vilnius
🕑 Added 2023-07-11 20:08:14 +0000 UTCThe final version of the Vilnius Summit Communiqué issued by NATO heads of state and government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Vilnius on 11, July 2023, has been released.
It is 90 paragraphs, and most don't directly or indirectly reference Ukraine. This will cover the sections where Ukraine is mentioned. In the interest of brevity, there may be some oversimplification.
Paragraph 2: Welcomes Ukrainian President Zelenskyy as well as representatives from Australia, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, the E.U., Georgia, Moldova, and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Paragraph 5: States that peace in the European Atlantic region has been "shattered," and Russia is to blame. Declares the "Russian Federation the most significant and direct threat to Allie's security."
Paragraph 7: "Russia bears full responsibility for its illegal, unjustifiable, and unprovoked war of aggression against Ukraine, which has gravely undermined Euro-Atlantic and global security and for which it must be held fully accountable." It condemns Russia's violation of international law, the U.N. Charter, and OSCE commitments. It declares Russia's annexations illegal and unrecognized, including Crimea.
Paragraph 8: Calls for Russia to immediately stop its illegal war of aggression, cease the use of military force in Ukraine, and unconditionally withdraw from all occupied territories. It calls for the recognition of international borders. It also states that Belarus' support has been "instrumental," and the nation continues to provide support to Russia and its war of aggression. Additionally, it calls for Iran to end its "complicity."
Paragraph 9: Indicates support for Ukraine's ten-point peace plan and blames Russia for not showing "any genuine openness to a just and lasting peace" in its negotiations.
Paragraph 10: Reaffirms "unwavering solidarity" with Ukraine and support for the nation's right to self-defense.
Paragraph 11: Waives the NATO requirement to create a Membership Action Plan as a first step to accession for Ukraine. Will it states that "Ukraine has become increasingly interoperable and politically integrated with the Alliance and has made substantial progress on its reform path. In line with the 1997 Charter on a Distinctive Partnership between NATO and Ukraine and the 2009 Complement, Allies will continue to support and review Ukraine’s progress on interoperability as well as additional democratic and security sector reforms that are required." It goes on to state, "We will be in a position to extend an invitation to Ukraine to join the Alliance when Allies agree, and conditions are met."
Paragraph 12: Establishes a NATO-Ukraine Council as a joint body of equals to "advance political dialogue, engagement, cooperation, and Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO."
Paragraph 13: Agrees to extend and expand the non-lethal Comprehensive Assistance Package to Ukraine as a multi-year program with short, medium, and long-term goals.
Paragraph 16: It condemns Russia's modernization of its nuclear weapons stockpile and the development of "dual-use" weapons that can target civilians and their infrastructure. It also condemns the forward deployment of tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus and Russia's continued threats to use nuclear weapons.
Paragraph 25: Calls on the People's Republic of China to condemn Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine, uses its power on the U.N. Security Council, and to stop amplifying Russian propaganda. It also calls on China to "abstain from supporting Russia's war effort in any way."
Paragraph 63: Recognizes "emerging disruptive technologies" on the battlefield and the adaptation of commercially available products to be used in warfare, as demonstrated by Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine. NATO will make investments to integrate new technologies and explore dual-use solutions. It also establishes funding for research and development in the areas of artificial intelligence and autonomy, quantum technologies, and "biotechnology and human enhancement."
Paragraphs 74 and 79 discuss the security of Europe and the Black Sea, both broadly and in the context of Ukrainian sovereignty.
Paragraph 84: Declares Iran's support of Russia is impacting Euro-Atlantic security and expresses "serious concern" about Iran providing UAVs.
ASSESSMENT: Ukraine is not happy and has expressed frustration with the final version of the communique and the non-commitment from NATO. The primary issue is paragraph 11, "We will be in a position to extend an invitation to Ukraine to join the Alliance when Allies agree, and conditions are met." While the document references the 2008 Summit in Bucharest and the 1997 Charter of Distinctive Partnership between NATO and Ukraine, and its 2009 update, no roadmap was provided on what needs to be done to meet conditions. In our assessment, this is a valid argument. Ukraine is not the same country it was in 1997, 2008, or 2009, and that's before Russia's occupation of Crimea.
There is no question that Ukraine needs to continue its path of reforms that started in earnest in 2019. The political, economic, and military transformation in the last 18 months has been remarkable, considering the nation is at war, under martial law, and having to make societal-level changes while its people fight for its existence. We have documented Ukraine's work in rooting out corruption, which is accelerating. The statement from NATO is too vague and doesn't even establish a path for creating clear and specific goals and timelines. For example, it could have included another sentence declaring that a set of clear conditions will be established and jointly agreed upon.
Is every member of the Armed Forces of Ukraine trained and capable to the peer level of NATO members? No. Are there tens of thousands of soldiers who are, with almost a decade of combat experience? Absolutely. And compared to some other NATO nations that have not met financial or training commitments for decades, this must be disheartening for Kyiv.
Kyiv and its government are quick to point out that the NATO-Ukraine Council is just that, a council for more talk. After the Budapest Memorandum convinced Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons capabilities in exchange for security guarantees, the 2008 NATO Budapest memo, Minsk I, and Minsk II, Kyiv is tired of councils and talks.
While Russian propagandists and the Kremlin are focused on making completely empty threats at Sweden, today's non-decision is a win for Moscow. Russian President Vladimir Putin has never been weaker during his almost 24 years in power. We willingly acknowledge that NATO officials know vastly more about Russia's capabilities and posturing of its forces, including nuclear, but while other nations such as Turkey and Finland are metaphorically extending a middle finger to the Kremlin, other NATO countries continue to believe that there is a path of appeasement. Moscow sees appeasement as a weakness. We have repeatedly assessed the best way to deal with a playground bully is to punch them in the nose. That is a metaphor and not a call for war against Russia, but to stand up to their aggression.
WHY CAN'T UKRAINE JOIN NATO AS IT IS?
The question has come up of why can't Ukraine join NATO now even if NATO wanted them to. The NATO Charter is quite clear that any nation under war or occupation cannot join NATO until the war and/or occupation is over, and all disputes on the territory have ended. Whether Georgia or Moldova have NATO aspirations (Moldova has repeatedly said no), neither nation could start the process if they wanted to, as they both have disputed territories under Russian occupation.
WHAT ABOUT GERMANY? WASN'T EAST GERMANY OCCUPIED?
East Germany and the division of Berlin were internationally recognized. At the time West Germany ascended into NATO, it was not at war with the Soviet Union and, by the U.N. Charter and under international law, was not occupied. The situation in Ukraine is different.
JUST BECAUSE A NATO MEMBER ASKS FOR ARTICLE V DOESN'T MEAN THE ALLIANCE HAS TO SAY YES. IF MAP CAN BE WAIVED, CAN'T THE NON-AGGRESSION PART BE WAIVED TOO?
While an interesting argument, we can only provide a hot take. If a nation under war is allowed accession to NATO, but can't invoke Article V because it's already at war or occupied, then what's the point? In our view, it could further blur the lines and make it more difficult, not easier, to make an Article V decision if Russia were to strike a current NATO member. The bigger issue is clearly defining what Ukraine must do.
CONCLUSION
In 2001 the Bush (43) Administration started to embark on a plan to reduce the size of the United States military further. For a point of reference, while the proposed 2024 United States military budget is $890 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars, the United States was spending $1.7 trillion on its military during the Reagan era at the height of the Cold War. The belief was that the Russian Federation was not a threat, "Pooty-Poot," as George W. Bush called Putin, could be trusted and was an ally to the West, and regional conflicts would be the future. Terrorist attacks in Africa, Europe, and culminating with the 9/11 attacks in the United States, cemented that vision.
In 2004 a number of former Warsaw Pact nations joined NATO. Western Europe breathed a sigh of relief and started reaping a peace dividend. It should have been a red flag when Russian President Vladimir Putin wrote down his intentions and vision to reestablish Russia's Imperial border in 2011. It should have been a red flag in 2014 when Russia starts its war of aggression and occupied Crimea, and supported the criminal-led so-called republics of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republic. Even in 2022, a land war in Europe on the scale of World War II seemed impossible, yet here we are.
Some NATO members appear to be clinging to the belief that Moscow can eventually be contained through negotiation or battlefield exhaustion. The Kremlin will keep sending its citizens to war in Ukraine if they have to equip them with pitchforks and slingshots and issue burlap sacks as uniforms. If the goal is no longer to win, which by Russia's February 22, 2022, stated goals are impossible, then the goal is to exhaust the West and freeze the conflict. That's a war Russia can definitely win, rebuild, requip, and start over.
Ukraine continues to fight with one hand tied behind its back. If NATO allies expect Ukraine to adopt NATO military standards but won't equip Ukraine to fight following those standards, Ukraine will never meet the conditions to develop a peer military while at war. It is an impossible task.
It almost feels like a slap in the face to state Ukraine needs to elevate its military to NATO standards when it has been jointly training with NATO since 2014, and other NATO members are fielding M-60 tanks, M113s, F-4s, and Mig-21s. Some NATO nations that are wealthy, democratic, and have low corruption, treat their militaries as little more than underfunded ceremonial forces.
The only way Russia will recognize Ukraine's 1991 borders is through military force or a seismic shift in the Russian government. If Russia holds even one square meter of Ukrainian territory when peace is finally agreed to, Moscow will interpret that as a victory and Western appeasement. Then, as the West wrings its hands over Ukrainian NATO membership during reconstruction, diplomats can drag that discussion out just long enough to end up back at 2014.
Putin is weak and has surrounded himself with incompetence causing unspeakable suffering not just in Ukraine, but Syria, the Central African Republic, Mali, Sudan, and on his own people. Russia is exposed for the paper tiger that it is, but Russia loves a frozen conflict, and Russia will wait decades if needed to get its vengeance. Ukraine and its supporters were hoping for bravery from Vilnius. Instead, it was more of the same.
Comments
If Ukraine had been accepted into NATO then, rather than further weaken Putin, this might conceivably have boosted him. He'd use it as a validation of the reason Russia is in the war: they are responding to NATO expansionism and the West's goal to destroy Russia. Little old Russia is the victim of the "woke" West. This might work with internal Russian politics and with allies like China. In reality Ukraine will get the same military support and security guarantees regardless of this decision. NATO acceptance would become a talking point on Russian State TV and propaganda and so a needed distraction away from bad news and recent events. More talk about moving even closer to a nuclear war. Ukraine has good reason to fear that they might (again!) be sold short by their allies, but we have to consider how far this situation has moved on in the last 18 months. Ukraine will eventually be accepted into NATO and the EU. Those positions are unlikely to be bargained away in peace agreements now.
I don’t know what more Selenski should have hoped for(?) A candidate needs to have 1) a functioning democracy, not the case in martial law; 2) a functioning economy, not the case in a full scale war; 3) not be in a war or have disputed territory. All these requirements can only be fulfilled after a peace agreement has been achieved or waived. Plus the fourth stipulation that all members must agree means that the extraordinary actions of waiving all those requirements is impossible at the moment. If NATO waived all those requirements and Ukraine joined while at war with Russia that would mean NATO would be able to draw a line and say attack here or there and we will get involved, which as I understand has been communicated by the relevant members anyway. And what effect would it have on the Russian leadership? They would have clearer proof that they are threatened by NATO. How would that bring them to the table? Their argument is that their country is indefensible without a friendly Ukraine. So, it is a catch-22 from my perspective. This seems to be a “wait a little longer and see what happens “ answer. The current Russian mindset will not give up until either there are no more soldiers to throw at the front or they decide they are less threatened by peace. That is the question: what would bring about a Russian leadership that feels less threatened by peace. I doubt a clear path for Ukraine to join NATO is the answer.
Russian Lt. Gen. Oleg Tsokov was killed (with a Storm Shadow missile) Tuesday in Berdiansk, southeastern Zaporizhzhia. Each storm shadow costs $3.19 million USD and so really he should be flattered that Ukraine considered him worthy of a Storm Shadow! For example I don't think Ukraine would even commit a HIMAR ($100,000) on Shoigu and Gerasimov.
If only everyone were as serious as Poland.
Ethan Stein
Is it too much to hope for the non-export version?
Thank you for your comment. Not suggesting NATO go to war against Russia, but do believe that NATO and Western allies need to be better prepared for a land war against Russia, which is a partial insurance policy for land wars on a regional scale in other parts of the war. There is no way Ukraine can join NATO until hostilities are over and any dispute on borders have ended.
*the French SCALP-EG missile that's being donated by France is the same missile as the British Storm Shadow. Jointly developed.
Love the assessment, but I disagree with the conclusion. Ukraine cannot join NATO until the war is over. There is no path for NATO to just declare war on Russia over Ukraine. Ukraine will, someday, be a part of NATO, but only as a peace settlement of this war. We, unfortunately, have no choice but to continue to support Ukraine until they eventually defeat Russia. Which they will…eventually. This is my opinion only…don’t hate player…hate the game!
There was talk of an offer of an ‘Israel-style’ security guarantee for Kyiv. Some analysts consider this to be a more realistic option than a vague timetable for NATO membership with no short-term protections. "Under this ‘guarantee‘ the UK, United States, France and Germany will commit to a long-term plan to arm Kyiv to defend itself from Russian aggression." Also Zelenskyy may yet extract more short-term concessions by leveraging Ukraine's disappointment at not being offered NATO membership. Anyone else noticed that he's a pretty good politician for a comedian?!?! France is donating their long-range cruise missiles. Germany more armoured vehicles. Over to you President Biden...
Frustrating to say the least. There will never be an agreement with Russia on Ukrainians’ soil!
While the current political climate in Ukraine is largely pro-Western, it wasn’t many years ago that it wasn’t. I can understand why some members are unwilling to commit the power of NATO to a volatile situation. NATO’s integrity and unity is already compromised; I hope it remains the bulwark needed.
AnaR737
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/wagner-fighters-neared-russian-nuclear-base-during-revolt-2023-07-10/
