"Negotiations" About a Postponed War
The words of former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen that Ukraine could allegedly join NATO before the war with Russia ends and without the temporarily occupied territories have once again sparked a discussion about the possibility of establishing peace or at least "freezing" the war that Russia is waging against Ukraine, starting a negotiation process and "dialogue" between the world and Russia. Rasmussen can hardly be called a Russia sympathizer. Moreover, since July last year, he has been co-chairing a group of international security advisors (the other co-chair is Andriy Yermak, head of the Office of the President of Ukraine). This group (the Special Group on International Security Assurances for Ukraine) was drafting a treaty on security guarantees for Ukraine, known as the Kyiv Security Compact, in the summer of 2022. Rasmussen believes that NATO should invite Ukraine to join the Alliance at the Summit in Washington in July 2024. However, this opinion of the former Secretary General, who headed NATO from 2009 to 2014, i.e. after the end of Russian aggression in Georgia and at the beginning of Russian aggression in Ukraine, is neither realistic nor successful.
Ending the war in Ukraine, establishing peace with Russia, and returning it to a full-fledged circle of communication is a fix idea for many politicians of various stripes in the world. Some are ready to bring Russia back at any cost, to "make everything as it was" even at the expense of Ukraine and concessions from the West. The motivation is lost economic benefits, learned fear of Russia as a global military power (primarily nuclear), and sometimes corrupt ties to Moscow.
For example, former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder claims that Ukraine could have negotiated with Russia and made concessions, and the war would have ended, but that the United States allegedly forbade it. True, Schroeder is outright lying in saying this, as he claims that there is no threat from Russia to Western countries, but the words of Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov in January 2022, a little more than a month before the full-scale Russian invasion, that "NATO should pack up and get out of the 1997 borders" clearly contradict the assertions of this Gazprom money lover.
There is an opinion that the problem is not that complicated and can be solved very quickly. This was stated by the 45th President of the United States, Donald Trump, who has now made the statement that he will resolve the war between Russia and Ukraine "before the inauguration" part of his election rhetoric as he prepares for the presidential race next year. However, he does not mention the ways in which this could be achieved.
Therefore, Rasmussen, who claims that his proposed admission of Ukraine to NATO without the occupied territories could allegedly deter Russia from intensifying attacks on Ukrainian territory within NATO and thus free up Ukrainian forces to go to the front line, is only formally speaking in support of Ukraine. But in reality, this position is detached from reality.
Russia Won't?
In Ukraine, Rasmussen's words were noticed. But it's worth noting that Ukraine has an excellent understanding that signing agreements with Russia does not mean that the Russians will fulfill them. The entire history of the Minsk agreements is about this. So, even if we assume that Russia agrees to a ceasefire and a freeze on the conflict, this does not guarantee that this will happen.
Ukraine's accession to NATO in such conditions, when part of its territory is under the occupation of the aggressor, looks not only problematic, but also quite fantastic. On the one hand, it is a clear threat to the Alliance, and therefore, there is unlikely to be a consensus among its members to accept such a member.
At the same time, Rasmussen's thesis that Ukraine's membership in NATO would deter Russia from attacking the front lines is also debatable. Quite the contrary, Ukraine's membership in such conditions will turn into a constant stress for NATO. For Russia, this means the possibility of constant provocations in the form of shelling of varying intensity, which will ultimately lead to questions about the functionality of the Alliance and its ability to protect its members. The downing of a Russian missile in Poland and Shahed drones in Romania did not result in the invocation of Article 5, which caused some disappointment among some eastern Allies.
In itself, Russia's fixation of the front line as a demarcation line seems unlikely. Russia, in violation of the principle of inviolability of borders, interstate agreements, and the UN Charter, has declared four regions of Ukraine (Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson) along which it passes as its territory, so fixing it in the agreement is not a win for Russian dictator Vladimir Putin.
Freezing to Continue the Aggression
Even if we assume that it will be possible to "freeze the war," it does not matter whether Ukraine joins NATO or not, it does not mean that the war will stop. And it certainly does not mean that other countries will be protected from Russian aggression in the future.
During the inaugural session of the 3rd Summit of the European Political Community in Granada, Spain, in early October this year, President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that Russia was considering, among other things, a scenario of freezing the war. But only to restore the potential and prepare for the resumption of the war against Ukraine and the expansion of aggression. In particular, against the Baltic states. In this scenario, we are talking about a five-year break that the Russians need.
On October 20, U.S. President Joe Biden said in a speech from the Oval Office that it was important to stop Putin because his ambitions were not limited to the seizure of Ukraine. He also recalled the Kremlin leader's hints that the territories in western Poland were allegedly "gifts from Russia." He also recalled that former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who remains in power, called the Baltic states, which are now full members of NATO, Russia's Baltic provinces.
A study by the German Society for Foreign Policy says that Russia will have 6 years to prepare for a war with NATO if the fighting in Ukraine is frozen.
Russia aims to destroy Ukraine and the Ukrainian identity through genocidal actions, and Moscow has demonstrated that it only needs negotiations to prepare for further aggression. In view of this, Ukraine has legislated that it is impossible to hold negotiations with Russian President Putin. The relevant decision was made by the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine on September 30, 2022, the day Russia announced the illegal "accession" of four occupied regions to Russia.
It was enacted by a Presidential Decree on the same day. The peace formula announced by President Zelenskyy on November 15, 2022, at the G-20 Summit in Bali contains a clause on the return of justice, which provides for the establishment of a special tribunal for the crime of Russian aggression against Ukraine. The "freeze" delays the establishment of justice.
Neither "Finnish" Nor "Korean" Options
Justice is necessary. Otherwise, it is just a matter of hypocrisy. When the example of Finland in 1940 is cited as an argument for the need for Ukraine to accept the occupation of part of its territory by the Russians, it is not true. Finland lost territory, but it remained uninhabited. It evacuated 422,000 people, which was 12 percent of the country's population at the time. Ukraine, on the other hand, is being asked to forget about the millions of people who remain at the mercy of the invaders.
Russia is pursuing a tough occupation policy. Anyone in the occupied territories who does not receive a Russian passport is deprived of the opportunity to even receive medical care. Russians are mobilizing Ukrainian citizens for the war against Ukraine. They will also use them to expand their aggression in the future. There is a complete arbitrariness of the invaders, there is no justice. Russian officials themselves claimed that 700 thousand Ukrainian children were deported to Russia, and there is official confirmation that about 19 thousand were taken. Children in the occupied territories and deported to the Russian Federation are being brought up without a Ukrainian identity, which is a form of genocide.
It is also inappropriate to talk about the "Korean option". This is complete nonsense. In Korea, the war was fought by Koreans, with two different proto-powers, even if the US and the coalition (formally, UN troops) were behind some of them, and the USSR and China were behind others. In Ukraine, the territory is occupied by another country, which is pure aggression. And, most importantly, the "Korean option" was about two Koreas as a result. Do the plans of the Russian occupiers not include the creation, even formal, of a "second Ukraine" in the occupied territories? They declare "joining Russia". They are destroying Ukrainian identity wherever they establish control. For Ukraine, the "Korean option" is another attempt to revive the idea that Russians and Ukrainians are "one people" in the world. Half a millennium of confrontation proves that this is not the case.