A month after the conflict began, on March 17, 2022, I theorized that Kiev’s accession to the EU was the possible way out for protecting Ukraine. Some Solon then raised the issue of the dates of accession, the criteria for evaluation, and a set of caveats that conflicted with the scale of the tragedy. Now that the war has killed thousands of people, everyone argues that peacetime is more important than bureaucracy. Reason always makes its way, but it takes time. Unfortunately, the multiplication of dramas wears down the solutions proposed yesterday and makes them insufficient for today.
If staying in an EU that doesn’t have its own army is no longer enough given Russia’s expansionism towards long-time members like Sweden and Finland, to the point of urging them to join NATO, let alone Kiev does not envisage the only policy in the Alliance that can guarantee its present and future. It’s the power of things. We wrote it on October 7 last year: The only guarantee Zelenskyy would have brought to peace would be Ukraine’s accession – as a partner or member – to the Atlantic Pact. Even in this case, the objections of the professional Solons were in vain. Yesterday, in the Giornale, the excellent Biloslavo declared that Kiev opposes the ceasefire because it would now help a troubled Russia, but at the same time is convinced that the only way to guarantee itself tomorrow is to join NATO and that the Armistice comes about the Russian acceptance of this condition.
Of course, it would be a bitter pill for Putin, but things could get worse. It is clear to everyone that the situation on the ground has become problematic for Moscow. Prigozhin’s outbursts prove it. Currently, the Russians have captured 55% of Donbass, but they may lose ground. At this point, it would be difficult for Putin himself, internally, to justify thousands of casualties with no result. Just as hypocrisy can hide the fact that beyond the bureaucratic forms and mechanisms, Kiev is already in NATO: just look at who provides it with weapons, military advisers, intelligence services and training camps for its soldiers. Not to mention that such an epilogue is taken for granted over time.
After all, it would be a rational decision for Moscow to recognize a de facto reality even on a formal level and pave the way for a ceasefire at a difficult moment. In addition, Ukraine’s entry into NATO would require Zelenskyy: “Outside” the alliance he can decide and the others must follow him; “inside” would be restricted by the politics of the partners. Moscow must therefore weigh up whether it is worth confronting the instinctive nationalism of the Azov battalion or the rationality of the White House, the pragmatism of the Pentagon and the cynicism of Langley. After all, the Kremlin has always asked for negotiations with Biden. And during the Cold War years, Europe never fought. It’s the power of things.