Ukraine's move to apply for NATO membership was met with considerable surprise in Brussels. Very few saw it coming, and while there is plenty of sympathy for Kiev there, don't expect the country to join the military alliance quickly, as President Vladimir Zelensky promised when he announced the latest move. In fact, don't expect much on this front anytime soon.
The most common interpretation I hear when talking to NATO officials concerns the moment in which Zelensky announced his intentions - just hours after Vladimir Putin's big show in Moscow, in which the Russian leader confirmed his intention to annex new Ukrainian territory and once again threatened the West nuclear weapons - saber rattling.
Media-savvy, Zelensky had to "steal Putin's glory," one official told me, and, judging by the media coverage, managed to get people talking about something other than the Kremlin's latest move. The conversation, however, probably won't last that long.
It also reminded me of another move by Kiev earlier in the war: pressuring the West to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine. For several days, Ukrainian officials pushed for this, and experts debated the pros and cons of it. But the impossibility of this meant that all chatter soon died down and it has not been seriously discussed since the beginning of March.
The same fate is likely to befall Ukraine's bid for NATO membership, and for the same reason: the West, represented here by NATO, does not want to be drawn into this conflict in any way. To understand why, you need look no further than NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg's press conference in Brussels later that same day.
Yes, he said when asked about Ukraine's candidacy for NATO that "every democracy in Europe has the right to apply for membership in NATO, and that NATO allies respect that right. And we have stated again and again that the door of NATO and remain open".
This has essentially been NATO's way of appeasing Ukraine (as well as other NATO aspiring countries such as Bosnia and Herzegovina and Georgia) since the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest decided that one day that country welcome to join the Club. Nothing has changed here. But what was more important from that press conference were two other sentences from Stoltenberg.
The first was "NATO is not a party to the conflict". He repeated that exact sentence two more times during his 18 minutes in front of the press. NATO is ready to defend every inch of its own territory, and the members of the alliance still very much want to help Kiev defeat Russia by supplying them with weapons and ammunition.
But don't expect NATO to come to the rescue in any other way. A military confrontation with Moscow is something that should be avoided at all costs. So, as long as there is a Russian presence on Ukrainian territory, the whole idea of bringing Ukraine even closer to membership is rather moot. The same goes for Georgia and its frozen conflicts.
The second sentence spoken by Stoltenberg, which makes Ukraine's potential admission even more speculative, is this: "We support the right of Ukraine to choose its own path, to decide what security arrangements it wants to be a part of. Then, of course, it has to make the decision on membership." all 30 allies and we make those decisions by consensus".
The need for consensus is the real killer of Ukraine's hopes. And they will prolong the wait no matter how much Kiev insists. Here you don't have to look further than Finland and Sweden. Their candidacy for membership in NATO met with a great welcome when they applied in May of this year. It was a purposeful process, just like the one Zelensky is looking for, and some steps were skipped or decided on very quickly.
And for a while there was even talk that the Nordic couple could join at the end of the summer. We are now in October and there is no sign of the Turkish parliament or president giving the green light until Stockholm makes the necessary concessions. In addition, the Hungarian MPs are still in no rush to vote yes.
Ukraine's membership plans have been supported by nine presidents of Central and Eastern European countries and there could potentially be a few more supporters, depending on how the war unfolds and how the geopolitical landscape in Europe changes in the coming months. But we are still far from the consensus of 30 (32 when Finland and Sweden finally join).
What could change is for NATO to update the way it deals with candidate countries. Until now, this has been done through the Membership Action Plan (MAP) - a kind of pre-accession NATO program for advice, assistance and practical support tailored to the potential member. MAP does not imply future NATO membership.
Finland and Sweden completely skipped this stage, while Bosnia and Herzegovina has been in it since 2010 and still has not progressed much. For both Ukraine and Georgia, even obtaining a MAP has so far proved elusive.
At the upcoming NATO summit in Vilnius, scheduled for the summer of 2023, MAP could be awarded to Kyiv or Tbilisi - or both. But MAP has become a politically sensitive word in NATO circles, especially when mentioned in connection with the eastern aspirants. Perhaps it could be "MAP in substance but not by name", something that could be presented as a "road map" or "membership consultation"?
In any case, any step forward would of course require consensus, and unanimity is also needed for the next steps - signing the accession protocol and its ratification. In other words, a difficult task that will take time.
The best-chance scenario for Ukraine, when it comes to its bid for NATO membership, is for a lot to change for the better, both on the battlefield and in political parlors across the alliance, in the nine months leading up to the next summit.
Bonus video:
