The fatal mistake of 2008 led not only to Russia's attack on Georgia, but also to the largest continental war in the heart of Europe since the end of World War II, and even the possibility of Putin using nuclear weapons.
Therefore, threats to place tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus are not blackmail or bluff at all, but a real threat that must be taken seriously.
Putin is constantly raising the stakes.
Nuclear weapons are the only thing he has left, because the Russian professional regular army was buried by the defense forces of Ukraine, and the defense industry of the Russian Federation is in significant decline.
The Kremlin has bet on a war of attrition, hoping that eventually the West will tire of supporting Ukraine, as they say, "for as long as necessary."
And our Western partners, as The Wall Street Journal recently wrote, do not know how to achieve a victory for Ukraine in this war.
What's more, they don't even think that Ukraine's membership in NATO should be talked about now, and not after the end of the war.
The West must understand that even after the withdrawal of the Ukrainian army to the borders of 1991, there is a risk that hostilities will continue already on the new front line, which will pass exactly along the border of 1991.
Therefore, it is a mistake to talk about Ukraine's membership in the Alliance after the end of hostilities, especially after the signing of some kind of peace agreement with Russia.
Our closest neighbors, in particular Romania, are convinced that the mistake of 2008 must be corrected immediately.
It is necessary to guarantee Ukraine membership in NATO, without replacing it with any security guarantees, which Russia will certainly violate because it wants revenge.
About the lessons of the Bucharest NATO Summit, mistakes of the past and expectations from the Summits of the Alliance in Vilnius in July 2023 and the USA in 2024 TSN
.
u.a
spoke with Romanian MP, member of the defense committee and the Romanian delegation to the NATO PA, Pavl Popescu.
- Since we are approaching the 15th anniversary of the unfortunately infamous Bucharest NATO Summit, which took place right here in the Romanian Parliament building in 2008, do you think it was a mistake that Ukraine did not receive the MAP then?
If so, who made this mistake and why?
- I definitely believe that it was not just a mistake.
It was a very big mistake.
The summit took place 15 years ago right outside this door, 15 meters from me (we recorded the interview in the building of the Romanian Parliament, where the Bucharest NATO Summit of 2008 took place - ed.).
It was a historic summit.
However, unfortunately, I can say that it was a big mistake.
From Romania's point of view, we are firmly convinced that this was a mistake at the time, because we supported, as we do now, the idea of providing Ukraine with a MAP.
You asked me who, let's say, contributed to this decision.
It was a political decision.
And everything that is happening these days, even if these days are on the right or wrong side of history, requires a political decision from politicians through political leadership, which I think is lacking today in the whole world, not only in Europe.
So, giving you some names, I think at that time Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy (German Chancellor and French President - ed.) were the two people who, unfortunately, contributed to the delay in the granting of the MAP to Ukraine.
Because they believed, and it was such a theory then, that not provoking Russia would lead us to more peaceful times.
Which, as we see today, was the wrong decision.
And usually, when you make this decision not to provoke Russia, you can influence the rules of the Alliance.
Because the rules of the Alliance say very clearly - there is an open door policy of NATO.
So if someone wants to knock on the door of the Alliance and say tomorrow "I want to be a part of it, prepare me for this", then they have good reasons to be a part of it.
Romania supported it.
And the Alliance must follow these rules.
- But we also remember very well, and, by the way, we know about this fact, that Putin was here, participated in the 2008 Bucharest NATO summit.
And even then he threatened the US president, the leaders of Germany and France with nuclear weapons.
Because he believed and still believes that NATO is approaching the Russian borders, which is why it is a threat to the Russian Federation.
- I think he still believes in it.
I don't think that a person changes his point of view when he gets older.
I am convinced that his thoughts and convictions are stronger.
He did it 15 years ago, and we see him doing the same thing now.
Putin has been steadfast in his beliefs about Russia, Europe, democracy and freedom.
However, I think in those days political leaders did not feel threatened or endangered by his threats.
I am convinced that it was a political decision (not to provide Ukraine with the MAP - ed.) based on some economic interests.
And we have to talk about it very loudly.
Because Western Europe made the whole of Europe pay for their price through the business that Europe did with Russia.
We received cheap gas from Russia, "Nordic Streams"... But especially those countries that decided to follow this plan.
And I emphasize the fact that Eastern Europe was the voice of that Europe
which did not support this decision, criticized Nord Stream-2.
We live in a time where we can see that what we said years ago was right.
But unfortunately, it did not help much.
- But now Ukraine's membership in NATO is still a taboo for the member countries of the Alliance or not?
- Personally, I think that it is still a taboo.
But if you were to ask me about the MAP for Ukraine, I think it is something urgent and pragmatic that should be implemented at the very first NATO meeting (Alliance summit in Vilnius in July 2023 - ed.).
Because Ukraine has already shown us that it can protect the gates of Europe, democracy, human rights, everything we fight for, all our values, not only with the help of speeches that we all make in our political bubbles.
Ukraine did it with weapons in hand at the cost of its people, with blood, which, unfortunately, is shed every day.
Therefore, there are no other arguments, there are no higher arguments than this for providing at least a MAP that is not a blank check.
Because the MAP for joining NATO is not a blank check.
This is the plan.
This is preparation for possible joining our Alliance.
- You know, it's very interesting.
You just mentioned the MAP.
But Sweden and Finland, for example, are currently joining NATO even without the MAP.
So, when we talk about Ukraine joining NATO, how can it be?
With the help of a real MAP, or some road map?
- Sweden and Finland have not yet joined NATO.
Hopefully they will do it sooner than we hope.
We still have some paperwork to do, which is really a political decision.
Romania has already fulfilled it.
And it was natural for Sweden and Finland to follow this abbreviated procedure to be a defensive part of Europe's gate on this flank.
Ukraine's accession to NATO is already taking place without a road map or plan, and is very practical compared to other countries.
It should be tomorrow if you ask me personally.
Because, and I will repeat this argument once again, that compared to all of us, Ukraine defends our democratic values with weapons in hand, with the blood of its people.
But, unfortunately, a political decision is very difficult.
And, as I said, we insisted on this decision back in 2008.
We supported Ukraine's accession to NATO through an accelerated or shortened road map that you want to have.
But one thing we have missed in this Alliance today is how we make individual decisions, how to speak with one voice.
We see the provision of aid to Ukraine.
We managed to do it in a matter of seconds (here TSN.ua disagrees with the Romanian deputy - ed.).
When it comes to political discussion, some countries still think twice.
Because everything is complicated, many of them are from the past.
But, as I said, everything depends on the political decision of a particular political leader.
Anyone who has the courage to say that this time we will be on the right side of history, whatever it costs.
how to speak with one voice.
We see the provision of aid to Ukraine.
We managed to do it in a matter of seconds (here TSN.ua disagrees with the Romanian deputy - ed.).
When it comes to political discussion, some countries still think twice.
Because everything is complicated, many of them are from the past.
But, as I said, everything depends on the political decision of a particular political leader.
Anyone who has the courage to say that this time we will be on the right side of history, whatever it costs.
how to speak with one voice.
We see the provision of aid to Ukraine.
We managed to do it in a matter of seconds (here TSN.ua disagrees with the Romanian deputy - ed.).
When it comes to political discussion, some countries still think twice.
Because everything is complicated, many of them are from the past.
But, as I said, everything depends on the political decision of a particular political leader.
Anyone who has the courage to say that this time we will be on the right side of history, whatever it costs.
- But what about the conditions and scenarios for the end of this war?
Because we hear from the top leaders of the EU: okay, we will talk about Ukraine's membership in NATO after the end of the war, because we still have to see how this war will actually end.
- This war will end in only one way - when Russia leaves Ukrainian territories, with Ukraine's victory over Russia with our help.
This is the only way, in my opinion, how this war can be ended.
And, yes, I also believe that the real discussion about Ukraine joining NATO should be conducted, I wouldn't say, in peacetime, but in those times when we can talk about it and make a plan on how to do it.
Because while you are at war with Russia, you have no opportunity to plan.
And I don't think it's very wise to plan too much when you're at war with Russia.
We hope that this war will end soon.
I am not talking about the tension and wounds that will remain for many years.
Everyone should know and expect this.
I am not talking about future generations who will feel the tragedy of these years.
But I am talking about the moment, which should be very close to us, when Ukraine will be able to expel Russia from its territories.
And I think by that time we should take these steps and accelerate them, of course through a political decision.
If I look at Europe at this moment, because we are talking about Europe, I see two voices: Eastern European and Western European.
I think that over the years we have proven that the Eastern European voice, which lived in the shadow of Russian influence, very deeply understands what Russian influence means on our territory.
- When we hear proposals about security guarantees that can be provided to Ukraine, do you think this is a change of concepts?
Because we in Ukraine understand very well that only Ukraine's membership in NATO will protect us from the repetition of these bloody wars in the future, because the Russians will want revenge in years or decades.
So, can we be promised any security guarantees without NATO membership?
- We should no longer believe in any security guarantees when we talk about Russia.
Time has already shown and proved to us that any security guarantees with Russia are nothing for the criminal Putin.
Therefore, choosing between the path of security guarantees, no matter who talks about it, a clear MAP and a clear path for Ukraine to NATO, I would choose the second option.
Even if years ago it was already politically correct to discuss and debate about how Ukraine should join NATO, behind closed doors everyone laughed.
I remember in 2017 or 2018 I was in Kyiv, we made political statements about how Ukraine should join NATO, how Ukraine should do this or that.
But behind closed doors, everyone thought it was impossible.
Five or six years later, here we are, discussing and believing it.
And I believe that this is the only and correct way.
Speaking of Russia, there can be no security guarantees.
Russia can withdraw from any agreement it has signed or will sign.
We do not trust a regime that kills people.
- We are approaching the NATO summit in Vilnius in July this year.
Can Ukraine hope to receive there a MAP or some road map that will open the way to our membership in NATO?
And regarding President Biden's speech in Poland.
He hinted at the NATO anniversary summit in 2024 in the United States.
What do you think he meant?
- I don't know what President Biden meant.
But we all saw his obligations (the obligations of the US in Article 5 of the NATO Charter on collective defense - ed.).
There is no other option, and I sincerely believe that President Biden and the United States will take the opportunity in 2024 to come out not just with a political statement, a creative solution, but with something very concrete to heal the wound that has appeared in this part of the world .
And I am convinced that leadership should come from there.
We are all looking at the US.
The European voice is stronger and more united than ever.
Even when the eastern and western parts of Europe speak differently when it comes to Ukraine, we have proven that we are on the right track.
As for Vilnius, I think there is a pretty good chance of getting a serious political solution there.
I would bet a lot on wisdom
that Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has in his ability to conduct political negotiations on a clear and pragmatic solution for Ukraine's road map for joining NATO.
If we see the first step taken in Vilnius, I am convinced that at the NATO anniversary summit in the USA we will see something more concrete, which, I hope, will solve this problem once and for all.
*This interview is produced in partnership with the French Media Development Agency (CFI), within the framework of the Hub Bucharest project with the support of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs.