Ukraine’s National Security in the Context of NATO’s Strategic Uncertainty — roundtable

On Wednesday, 28 August, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, with the organisational support of the SE GDIP, held a round table discussion entitled Ukraine’s National Security in the Context of NATO’s Strategic Uncertainty.

Hryhorii Perepelytsia, Foreign Policy Research Institute Director, Professor at the Department of International Relations and Foreign Policy of the Educational and Scientific Institute of International Relations of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Doctor of Political Science, moderated the event. In his opening remarks, Mr Perepelytsia outlined the history of Ukraine’s relations with NATO from the Washington Summit in 1999 to the present day, identified the major obstacles to Ukraine’s accession to the North Atlantic Alliance, and highlighted NATO’s primary strategies as a defensive alliance, particularly those concerning the response to the aggressor state, russia. He also pinpointed Ukraine’s principal challenge amid the Alliance’s uncertainty regarding its membership. ‘Today’s round table topic might seem rather provocative, but it addresses Ukraine’s challenges directly. The long-standing anticipation of NATO membership has not materialised, compelling our country to seek new ways to ensure its national security. If we examine the history of Ukraine–NATO relations, we will see that our country has traversed a lengthy and arduous path, waiting for its prospects at the Alliance’s threshold. The doors to NATO membership, as was often said, remain open. However, Ukraine is still in the same ‘waiting position’. Therefore, the question arises: how can we safeguard our national security amid NATO’s strategic uncertainty? The strategy of deterrence does not work. This is why Ukraine now not only defends itself but also, by holding back russia’s onslaught, protects NATO member states, particularly the Alliance’s eastern flank. However, we see no guarantees, only the red lines that putin draws for the West, while the latter, in turn, sets red lines for us in matters of warfare, such as restrictions on the use of long-range weapons. Putin constantly warns the West that if Ukraine does not abandon its intention to join NATO, provocations from russia will continue. Does the North Atlantic Alliance have an adequate response in the face of a real threat to itself? This is the central question of our round table, which has gathered experts who are particularly knowledgeable in the issues under discussion. Today’s speakers will provide a professional perspective on the tools available in the context of uncertainty and the large-scale russian invasion, which now resembles a Third World War, as global players have already been drawn into the struggle for world dominance,’ the speaker stated.

From left to right, the speakers were: Yevhen Mahda, Oleksandr Khara, Hryhorii Perepelytsia, Valentyn Badrak, Yaroslava Shvechykova, and Mykola Sunhurovskyi

The round table brought together: Oleksandr Khara, Expert of the Centre for Defence Strategies; Yevhen Mahda, Director of the Institute of World Policy, PhD in Political Science; Valentyn Badrak, Director of the Centre for Army, Conversion, and Disarmament Studies; Yaroslava Shvechykova, Assistant Professor at the Department of International Relations and Foreign Policy of the Educational and Scientific Institute of International Relations of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, PhD in Political Science; Mykola Sunhurovskyi, Director of Military Programmes at the Razumkov Centre.

Helena Hakaoja, First Secretary for Political and Economic Affairs at the Embassy of Finland 

Donatas Butkus, Deputy Head of the Embassy of Lithuania in Ukraine

Elena Leticia Mikusinski, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Argentina 

Martynas Barkauskas, Second Secretary at the Embassy of Lithuania

Faisal M Perdanaputra, Political Advisor and Head of the Chancery at the Embassy of Indonesia

Daro Nakshbande, Second Secretary for Political Affairs at the Embassy of the Netherlands

The event addressed a range of crucial issues, including: which security issues did the Washington NATO Summit 2024 highlight; strengthening of ‘deterrence and defence’ as NATO’s main principle, despite the ineffectiveness of deterrence and the perception of defence as merely avoiding conflict with russia; the notion that preventing confrontation with russia is not equivalent to ‘defending’ or ‘winning’ but is perceived as a form of covert capitulation — ways to overcome this dilemma; the role assigned to Ukraine in NATO’s ‘deterrence and defence’ strategy according to the decisions of the 2024 Washington Summit; whether NATO view Ukraine as a ‘buffer zone’, a ‘strategic periphery’, or a ‘forward post’ on the Alliance’s eastern flank; the implications of the shifting narratives regarding Ukraine’s NATO membership prospects, from ‘the door is open for Ukraine’ and ‘Ukraine will be a NATO member’ to ‘Ukraine is on an irreversible path to NATO membership’ and ‘the summit decision serves as a bridge to NATO membership’; the meaning of the ‘bridge’ concept: NATO membership instead of MAP and ANP or restricted entry for Ukraine; the commitment to long-term assistance in place of Ukraine’s collective defence, and the principles on which these commitments will be fulfilled; the ways to ensure Ukraine’s national security and defence in the event that NATO loses its international and geopolitical relevance.

Kasper Mølbæk Jacobsen, political counsellor Embassy of Denmark in Ukraine

Sasaki Daishin, Third Secretary at the Embassy of Japan