Russia has already lost in Ukraine upon entering its territory, and the NATO Summit in Vilnius confirms it. Moscow can jeer and might hope for a split between the West and Kyiv or a political conflict in Ukraine, but Russia is in for disappointment.
Moscow’s response to the NATO Summit was predictable. Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov and Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova adhered to the standard propaganda message, focusing on the alleged anti-Russian nature of the Summit and the collective West’s role in pushing Ukraine towards war. Russian propaganda fixated on the US pledge to supply Ukraine with cluster munitions, a topic unrelated to the Summit’s agenda.
These jeers from Moscow were more extreme than usual and had a ritualistic quality. The Kremlin was very concerned, as evidenced by an intense missile attack on Kyiv that night. The Russian interest in NATO’s decisions was shown through statements and actions distinct from Kremlin propaganda’s broadcasted news. During an interview with the local press at the ASEAN Summit in Indonesia, Sergey Lavrov blamed Ukraine and the West, not Russia, for the war.
He said that the West attacked Russia using Ukraine as a tool. Lavrov also emphasized that the condition for the war’s end is the collective West’s abandonment of Ukraine. The term “collective West” was forged by Kremlin PR experts to describe Russia’s adversaries. Furthermore, Lavrov doubled down the next day by declaring that giving Ukraine the F-16 fighter jets was not an option due to their capability to carry nuclear weapons. Yes, they can. However, almost any fighter jets already used in the Ukrainian Air Force, such as the Su-25 or Su-24, can take tactical warheads.
After the NATO Summit, Russian diplomacy resorted to desperate and absurd arguments. However, one can sense a lot of anxiety in their words. All because the NATO message is clear: they will not abandon Ukraine and will support it politically and militarily. This precise statement highlights Russian fears and exposes Moscow’s failure after its aggression began.
List of “victories”
If we examine Russia’s strategic interests and the motivations behind its aggression toward Ukraine, it is evident that its efforts have been unsuccessful. Vladimir Putin’s objective was to dismantle Ukrainian statehood through so-called “de-Nazification” and undermine the global order based on respected international law. A manifestation of this was the ultimatum of the Russian Foreign Ministry in December 2021. He advocated for a return to the old world order shaped by superpowers’ arbitrary decisions and the strong dominating the weak. He expected the international community to recognize and accept authoritarian governments’ right to conquer and establish spheres of influence. Russia wanted to push NATO away from its borders by subjugating Ukraine. Putin’s dream was to break the unity of the West.
After a year of war, the effects of Putin’s goals are visible. His aim was not to capture Mariupol with Bakhmut. Although losing part of its territory, Ukraine still exists as a state. Despite the undeniable fatigue, losses in personnel and equipment, and ammo consumption, the country’s armed forces are now stronger than at the beginning of the war. The central political hub controls the state more efficiently now. Constant political strife in Ukraine, historically Russia’s playground, has subsided. It does not mean that there is no opposition and no pretenders to take over power after Volodymyr Zelensky. However, the Ukrainian political class has shown amazing solidarity and ability to control their ambitions during the year-long war.
The Ukrainian state proved resilient in the most difficult moments of the attack on its capital and during the air raids that terrorized cities. Putin did not undermine Ukrainian statehood or the unity of the West. Western countries have diverse and often contradictory approaches to supporting Ukraine. For example, Viktor Orbán’s Hungary, Turkey, Germany, and many other nations behave differently. Despite Moscow’s claims, there is no such thing as one “collective West” policy toward warfare in Ukraine. The community of democratic states exists and works together through various organizations to negotiate compromises on important matters. Although the process can sometimes be slow and lead to perceptions of laziness, weakness, obstruction, and egoism, overall progress is made. Sweden and Finland’s path to NATO demonstrates that. In the last hours before the Summit in Vilnius, Turkey, and Hungary agreed to Sweden’s accession. It is another failure for Russia.
A key assumption of Russian policy was that the two Baltic countries would remain neutral. However, with NATO’s border now extended by 1,300 km, the Allies will fully encircle Russia, and their navies will work together in the Baltic. Putin’s next “victory” is the launch of a Sleeping Giant – the Western defense industry. The US and Europe have had to rebuild their capabilities in the defense industry after draining weapons warehouses that went to Ukraine. The Americans declared that by 2028 they would increase the production of 155 mm ammunition for howitzers to 85,000 pieces per month. The production of artillery ammunition alone is expected to reach Cold War levels within a few years. The awakening of the defense industry, also in terms of the technological arms race, was one of the main topics of the Vilnius Summit.
Moscow struggles due to its economic, demographic, and technological potential. Russia can’t handle the industrial powers of the West, let alone all of them. NATO in Vilnius intends to confront Russia long-term by supporting Ukraine.
Kyiv whining pity party
Volodymyr Zelensky’s dissatisfaction was misrepresented in the media. The summit assessment for Ukraine was based on a verbal skirmish between Zelensky and British Defense Minister Ben Wallace or a photo of Zelensky standing alone, far away from the gathering. It is undeniable that Zelensky and his team have influenced the current situation and views. Despite Ukraine not being invited to join NATO as a member state during the Vilnius Summit, they have been provided with the NATO-Ukraine Council, support at the G7 level, and the possibility of integration with the Alliance immediately after the end of the war. However, membership is conditional on factors such as the unpredictable development of the situation on the front, Russia’s position, and the legally complicated interpretation of when the “end of the war” will occur. Zelensky knows that war-conditioned membership can be a dangerous political tool for him.
His promises of victory and liberation of Ukrainian lands may put him under pressure from both internal politics and citizens wishing for an end to the war. Also, he is in a spot of bother caused by the Western allies, who are also looking forward to ending the war in some foreseeable perspective. Some unliberated territories may remain in limbo due to the cost of a ceasefire and achieving a peace resolution. Politics in Ukraine has changed, but Zelensky fears accountability for his promises from the various political forces and the Ukrainian nation. Therefore knowing he wouldn’t be invited to NATO at the Summit, Zelensky showed resentment for Ukraine to see that he tried. But it was not his fault that he failed. From the Russian perspective, Ukraine’s lack of security guarantees under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty changes little today because Russia cannot subjugate Ukraine.
Tough NATO guarantees and a protective umbrella will be useful in the future. Therefore, postponing Ukraine’s accession while supporting Kyiv is wise. However, there is a significant risk associated with this strategy. Political emotions such as disappointment, pretensions, and ambitions could lead to a takeover in Kyiv, causing political struggle and chaos, weakening the functioning of the state, and potentially sparking an internal conflict in Ukraine. It was his absence that determined the failure of the Russian invasion. Today, however, even if there is criticism of Zelensky’s leadership, it is because he has failed to bring Ukraine into NATO structures or liberate all occupied lands. The Kremlin has never desired such internal conflict but will always welcome one with open arms.
Michał Kacewicz/belsat.eu
Translated by PEV.
The opinions and thoughts expressed in the text reflect only the author's views.
