‘It Is Logical If They Discuss Belarus At The Talks’

Our country is a key point.

European leaders will gather in Paris for an emergency summit on the war in Ukraine. The day before, there were reports that a plan to automatically grant Kyiv membership in NATO if Russia violates the ceasefire will be discussed.

Is this option suitable for Ukraine? The Charter97.org website spoke with Doctor of Political Science, Professor of the Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv Petro Oleshchuk about this.

— You know, for me this all seems like some kind of nonsense. For one simple reason: there is no procedure for automatic membership of any country in NATO. The procedure for a country to join NATO is quite clearly defined. First, a country is invited to the Alliance, it accepts the invitation, and then the parliaments ratify the relevant documents and the country becomes a member of NATO.

The corresponding treaty must be ratified by the parliaments of all countries, including Hungary, Slovakia, Turkey, the United States and others.

How can automatic accession be ensured? All parliaments must vote in advance, but include a condition that the treaty will only enter into force as a result of an attack on Ukraine? And what would be considered an attack then? A missile attack? Or shelling on the front line?

It seems to me that they are trying to throw in as many different topics as possible in order to reduce tension.

You know, I have seen a huge number of such plans. I think we even discussed some of them. In particular, the plan for partial accession of Ukraine to NATO. That is, the territories that are not currently occupied will join, and the rest will be left out. I already said then that this plan was unrealistic. Now it has been forgotten.

Now here is this idea that was made public by American senators. But, again, we do not know how the Donald Trump administration feels about this plan. Most likely, negatively.

Trump is generally negative about Ukraine joining NATO, and he has spoken about it. I think the logic will be as follows: they will get together now, talk, but it will lead to nothing. After all, no such instruments simply exist. It is simply a legal fiction.

— Zelensky unexpectedly returned Belarus to the agenda. Why is the Ukrainian president raising this topic?

— The reasons may be different. Zelensky spoke about the movement of Russian troops to Belarus. It is obvious that the threat remains. In addition, Belarus is an obvious springboard that the Russian Federation considers as an opportunity to attack, for example, European countries, and this has happened before.

For example, the attack with the help of illegal migrants was carried out precisely from Belarus. I suspect that if Putin really has plans to test NATO, then he will most likely do this not from his own territory, but will hide behind Belarus as a proxy, from its territory he will attack some EU and NATO country.

In general, such an ambiguous situation remains with Lukashenka's behavior in this war. On the one hand, no one is interested in the war spreading to Belarus, but Putin continues to pressure Lukashenka so that he would become more actively involved in the war. The Belarus factor remains.

— Can Belarus become a subject of negotiations? For example, can the option of demilitarizing Belarus be considered?

— There may be different options. If we cover the negotiations from a position of power, then, of course, this is logical. But the question is in the format of this militarization.

Putin, for example, may say, like, I can also make concessions and not plant Oreshnik in Belarus. These may also be manipulative concessions.

You can support the website Charter97.org

MULTI-CURRENCY ACCOUNT FOR ASSISTANCE:

Bank's name: Bank Millennium S.A.
Address: ul. Stanislawa Zaryna, 2A, 02-593, Warszawa
IBAN: PL97116022020000000216711123
SWIFT: BIGBPLPW
Name of the account holder: Fundacja “KARTA ‘97”
Purpose/title of payment: Donation for statuary aims

You can contact us by the e-mail [email protected]