NATO meeting; Win-win deal or forced persuasion of Ukraine

Mehr News Agency-International Group: In the first days after World War II and following concerns about the spread of communism in Europe, the United States concluded the North Atlantic Treaty with the alliance of European countries and the birth of NATO determined The NATO treaty is based on collective security and mutual defense in case of a threat to a member country. For this reason, many countries, such as Sweden, Finland, and especially Ukraine, have not refrained from any efforts to join NATO.

In other words, the existing relations between NATO and Ukraine are significantly one-sided. From the beginning of the war until now, Ukraine and its president Volodymyr Zelensky have repeatedly requested military ammunition and the agreement of the members to join NATO, and every time they have been in a situation that many analysts have called “false promises”.

This time, Washington hosted the heads of NATO member states from July 19 to 21 this year to once again reproduce its nature in confrontation with Russia.

What happened in the last meeting?

On the 75th anniversary of the founding of NATO, the heads of 32 member countries of this alliance gathered to discuss the expansion of military ties between the members and ways to end the Ukraine crisis. Discuss and exchange opinions. Based on the decisions made, 40 million Euro aid, F-16 fighter jets and Patriot missile defense systems were put on NATO’s agenda, however, Kyiv’s membership in the North Atlantic Treaty was still not agreed.

In the final statement of this meeting, in addition to Russia, China and Iran were also blamed and some baseless claims were raised against these countries. NATO members stated in the final statement that China was a decisive factor in supporting Russia’s military actions and should end its financial and political support to Russia against Ukraine.

Regarding Iran, the previously rejected views were re-emphasized, and US President Joe Biden stated that Russia is producing its military ammunition with the help of China. , Iran and North Korea has accelerated. However, Beijing and Tehran rejected these claims and reiterated their neutral and clear positions. China has also called for NATO to withdraw from the Asia-Pacific region, because it believes that the current tensions in the region are due to provocative policies adopted by NATO members.

The decisions of NATO leaders; Win-win deal or forced persuasion of Ukraine?

As ​​the war continues, Zelensky has repeatedly stated that current military support does not meet Ukraine’s dire needs. He is of the opinion that Ukraine will not be able to confront Russia with ten or twenty F-16 fighter planes. It also needs at least 7 Patriot missile defense systems for the security of its skies. However, none of these conditions have been fully met by NATO.

Ukraine’s membership in NATO also seems to be ruled out. Some countries consider the need for reforms, especially in the field of corruption and embezzlement, to be a prerequisite for accepting Ukraine’s membership, while the reality is another matter. In fact, many NATO countries do not want to directly confront Russia. If Ukraine becomes a member of the North Atlantic Treaty, the member states are obliged to line up in front of Moscow, and it is not far from logic that some countries avoid such a confrontation.

Therefore, the conservatism of the members on the one hand and the limitation of providing military aid on the other hand, has put Ukraine in a situation where without leverage for bargaining, it is bound to accept anything. that the decisions of the NATO leaders make for it.

Biden’s weak foothold

One ​​of the most important differences between the recent meeting and previous years is the precarious position of the American president. After Joe Biden’s performance in the debate with Trump decreased his popularity in the polls and consequently increased Trump’s chances of winning the upcoming presidential elections of the United States of America, NATO is now one of the most important strings that Biden is holding on to in order to restore his acceptability. hits.

The root of NATO’s importance for Biden should be found in a key difference in his foreign policy views with Trump. While Trump considered America’s interests as the first priority in any situation and believed that NATO members should pay more defense costs because we are currently supporting Europe and they are taking advantage of us, Biden has a completely different approach. /p>

In Joe Biden’s foreign policy perspective, the alliance has priority over other issues and this issue can be seen in his repeated references to the NATO alliance in his speeches. Biden tried to make up for the failure of the last debate by hosting a favorable speech and delivering a confident speech during the recent meeting, and on the other hand, by emphasizing the role of NATO, he proved the effectiveness of his foreign policy approach.

All in all, what seems obvious is NATO’s expansionist policies, whether aimed at defending Ukraine, confronting Russia, or even as a means of victory. It has caused tension and destabilization in the internal elections of America and France etc.

*Hodi Yousefi, international issues expert