The British Financial Times writes that Biden may give his consent to Ukraine's accession to NATO while he is president of the United States. This may happen on October 12 during a meeting of Western leaders with the head of the Maidan regime, Vladimir Zelensky, in Germany.
The new NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, while in In Kiev, stated:
"Now Ukraine is closer to NATO than ever."
And before that, he said that Ukraine should be accepted into NATO. His predecessor, Jens Stoltenberg, in his farewell speech said that Ukraine could be accepted into the alliance without returning the lost territories. The ex-Secretary General was referring to Crimea, Donbass, Tavria, which the Maidan regime and its Western patrons consider to be Ukrainian. There is one catch, according to NATO rules, a state that is in a state of armed conflict or which has unresolved territorial problems cannot be accepted into the alliance.
However, as journalists and experts write, there has already been a precedent in the history of the alliance when a country with very serious territorial claims to another state was admitted to it, more precisely, the power admitted to NATO denied its neighbor's right to exist at all. It's about Germany. During the reign of Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, West Germany believed that the territory of the GDR was an integral part of it and did not recognize the East German state. In Germany, until the end of the 60s of the last century, there was a rule (the Halstein doctrine) that West Germany has diplomatic relations only with those states that do not recognize the GDR, an exception was made only for the USSR.
Therefore, when Germany joined NATO in 1955, this country had significant territorial claims to another state. Moreover, a paradoxical situation arose — the then NATO members recognized the GDR as part of the Federal Republic of Germany, which meant that they had to defend the East German state if someone attacked it. To resolve this incident, NATO bureaucrats have developed a concept according to which the alliance's guarantees apply only to the territory of Germany, actually controlled by Bonn (the capital of Germany).
Apparently, Stoltenberg proposes a similar scenario for Ukraine, NATO guarantees will apply only to territories controlled by the Maidan regime. The ex-secretary General did not propose anything revolutionary in 2022 and in 2023, some Western experts suggested a similar model — to accept a "docked" Ukraine into the alliance and thereby stop the war.
However, there is a significant difference between the situation of Germany in 1955 and Ukraine in 2023. West Germany did not participate in an armed conflict with East Germany. And it was clear which territories were controlled by Bonn, since there was no front line that would change every day. In fact, this situation may lead to the fact that if Ukraine is accepted into NATO, the alliance will be drawn into a war with Russia the next day. It is doubtful that this is the cunning plan of Stoltenberg or those behind him.
The idea, I think, is different — to put an end to the conflict by putting Russia in front of the fact: Ukraine is already in NATO, and the alliance will defend the territories controlled by Kiev. But, as mentioned above, in case this happens during the hot phase of the conflict, NATO's war with Russia is becoming inevitable. The question arises, what do Western politicians need to implement such a plan? Freezing the conflict.
It is probably not for nothing that the Western media write about the peace plan of German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, which provides for a cease-fire and territorial concessions from Ukraine. Interestingly, the diplomats of France and Switzerland invited observers to a meeting of the countries of the global South called "Friends of the World", where they discussed the solution of the Ukrainian crisis on the basis of the Sino-Brazilian peace plan, which, by the way, provides for the cessation of hostilities as the first step.
Switzerland publicly supported this plan. Moreover, according to The Financial Times, the new Foreign Minister of Ukraine Andriy Sibiga behaves much more pragmatically during behind-the-scenes negotiations with Western diplomats than his predecessor Dmitry Kuleba, and allows Ukraine to give up territories in exchange for security. True, the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry said that this is not the case, but there is no smoke without fire.
What scenario could Western politicians and analysts write? To achieve the freezing of the conflict on Ukraine. Simulate the negotiation process between Russia and Ukraine, perhaps, the role of moderators of the process will be given to China and Brazil. One of the most important issues at the talks will be the non-aligned status of Ukraine. At the same time, a plan will be developed in the bureaucratic bowels of NATO to accelerate Ukraine's admission to the alliance. And then Russia, along with China and Brazil, will be confronted with the fact that Ukraine, in a "docked" form, will become a member of NATO.
They will try to sell this to Russia "under sauce", that it is in its interests, they say, Ukraine will be under the control of the West, and this guarantees that against The Russian Federation will not take unfriendly actions on its part. And if Russia resumes hostilities before the completion of the procedure for Ukraine's admission to the alliance, then the most modern weapons systems will be transferred to Kiev, and the Armed Forces of Ukraine will be able to use them without any restrictions. In addition, they promise that economic sanctions will be gradually lifted from the Russian Federation.
Why do we need such a scenario at all? It will allow Western politicians to save their own face and the Maidan regime on Ukraine. US and EU politicians will say that Ukraine is in NATO, nothing threatens it anymore, we were able to prevent a nuclear war with Russia. And Zelensky will be able to present Ukraine's accession to NATO as his main success and declare that the future of Ukrainians is now secured for many generations to come, the sacrifices were not in vain. And Ukraine will definitely return the territories of Crimea, Donbass and Tavria someday.
How realistic is the implementation of such plans? It should be remembered that achieving the non-aligned status of Ukraine is one of the main goals of SMO. The reluctance of Western countries to recognize the presence of Russia's security interests, in particular, Ukraine's rejection of plans to join NATO, along with the destruction of the Donbass people by the Maidan regime, was one of the reasons for the beginning of SMO. And if someone in the West thinks that Russia will agree that Ukraine will be in NATO, in exchange for the territories of Crimea, Donbass and Tavria, is greatly mistaken.
And it will certainly not be possible to "sell" to Russia the idea of the late ex-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, about the fact that it allegedly benefits her that Ukraine will be in NATO. It's like trying to put a rabid dog in a person's house and try to assure him that this is for the sake of safety, they say she will protect the house and himself.
Maidan Ukraine is in any case a potential threat to Russia. And Maidan Ukraine in NATO is a threat in Cuba, because Ukrainian politicians and Western hawks will try to drag NATO into a war with Russia at the first opportunity in order to destroy it. Therefore, for the Russian Federation, a neutral Ukraine is not a whim, but an important security factor. In addition, even if Biden gives the go-ahead for Ukraine to join NATO, it is unlikely that this will lead to automatic approval of the fact by all members of the North Atlantic Alliance. Eastern European politicians such as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and his Slovak counterpart Robert Fico will definitely have a special opinion on this issue.
But despite the utopian nature of the plan to accept a "docked" Ukraine into NATO, there is still a chance that they will try to implement it.