The Ukrainian media criticizes both the West for its hesitation, as well as Zelenskyy for his failure to carry out the reforms demanded by NATO. Whereas the postponement of Ukraine’s accession means for the West that NATO has avoided a direct confrontation with Russia, for Kyiv accession is the only key to ending the war.
At the end of the NATO summit in Vilnius, the Kyiv media has harshly criticized Western leaders for their hesitation and their growing fear to antagonize Russia. The Ukrainian opposition and some independent experts have blamed the Zelenskyy administration for failing to convince NATO states that Ukraine needs strategic assurances in the context of Russia’s large-scale invasion.
According to Ukrainian media, the political uncertainty emerged in Kyiv in the wake of the summit in Vilnius might prove problematic for the country’s future trajectory. The decision taken on the sidelines of the summit in Vilnius has been compared by certain politicians in Kyiv with the one taken at the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, because it does not provide a clear perspective as to when exactly Ukraine’s accession might take place. At the same time, some have voiced criticism against Ukraine’s president, arguing he allegedly wants to take the short way to joining NATO, without implementing the reforms requested by the West.
How Zelenskyy’s staff reacted: some claim the summit was a win, while others speak of failure
Adviser to the president of Ukraine Mykhailo Podolyak expressed disappointment with the absence of a NATO decision regarding the condemnation of Russia’s terrorist actions on the territory of Ukraine. At the end of the summit, Podolyak accused NATO and the West of not understanding Russia and ignoring the threat posed by Moscow. “Our will is weak, our knowledge is deficient and our instruments are wanting. In this context, Ukraine is aware what is at stake and is now paying the highest price”, Podolyak said, arguing he doesn’t want Kyiv to take „a shortcut" to NATO accession.
“Article 5 in the NATO Treaty will not be triggered in the case of Ukraine”, Podolyak said, condemning the Allies’ hesitation. Like many other Kyiv-based politicians, Zelenskyy’s adviser sees NATO accession as a major prerequisite to securing victory against Russia, both in military terms as well as in the information war.
At the same time, the Secretary of Ukraine’s Security and National Defense Council, Oleksiy Danilov, described the results of the summit as a victory for Ukraine. “We wanted this summit to produce a clear-cut decision regarding Ukraine’s NATO accession. Nevertheless, I believe the result obtained by our president along with everything that happened in Vilnius is an undeniable victory”, Danilov said.
From Vilnius 2013 to Vilnius 2013: “To us, the door remain closed”
The summit in Vilnius proved the West is united in its opposition to Russia, being determined to prevent Moscow from violating the norms of international law, according to New Voice, a Kyiv-based media organization close to the Ukrainian opposition. However, the Allies’ unity is not as strong when it comes to Ukraine’s NATO accession, Ukrainian journalists say.
The former president of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, currently a deputy in the Verkhovna Rada, who in 2019 called for introducing a number of articles in the Constitution of Ukraine which treated NATO and EU accession as top priorities of Kyiv’s foreign policy, has voiced sharp criticism against politicians in Zelenskyy’s camp, who claim the resolution of the NATO summit in Vilnius represents a geopolitical victory. Poroshenko compared to the 2023 NATO summit in Vilnius to the 2013 EU summit in the Lithuanian capital-city, when the pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych refused to sign the EU Association Treaty, a decision that sparked widespread protests in Kyiv met with brutal police repression. “We did not get the much-anticipated invitation to join NATO, although Ukraine’s Armed Forces are already protecting NATO’s eastern flank”, Petro Poroshenko said.
According to the Ukrainian MP, NATO’s decision in Vilnius is a reiteration of the promise made at the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest. The former president criticized Zelenskyy for not managing to persuade his Western partners regarding the importance of inviting Ukraine to accede to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Additionally, Volodymyr Zelenskyy is accused of appointing individuals who are corrupt or have close ties to Russia in key government positions, and was advised to rid the political system of such people, implement the reforms negotiated in Vilnius and prepare for the 2024 NATO summit in Washington.
The former president of Ukraine also rebuked the West from the tribune of the Verkhovna Rada, arguing Western countries are prevaricating a decision on Ukraine’s NATO accession. “We don’t need promises about the door staying open. If the door is open, then please, allow us to come in. If you don’t, then it means the door is closed. Please, tell us the truth”.
Ukraine’s NATO accession, a topic on the agenda of the upcoming American-Russian peace talks
Yevropeiska Pravda (The European Truth) writes that Volodymyr Zelenskyy did not walk home with a geopolitical victory, but with a strategic indecision. According to analyst Sergiy Sydorenko, a NATO accession roadmap would be in the interest of not just Ukraine, but allied states as well. Without this roadmap and a clear-cut action plan, the future evolution of Ukraine-NATO relations is uncertain.
The decision taken in Vilnius is not labeled a catastrophe, but nor does it bode well for Ukraine’s future. “The NATO summit did not shatter Ukraine’s NATO accession prospects, it did not complicate its accession path, but nor has it done anything to smoothen it”, the Kyiv-based publication writes.
Afte the summit in Vilnius, Ukraine-NATO relations are no different from their pre-summit or pre-war status, despite the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. The Ukrainian daily criticizes NATO for envisaging Ukraine’s accession as a multiannual process, which means all possibilities are on the table, from an actual accession to an embitterment of relations with NATO. The North Atlantic Alliance is also criticized for not factoring in the impact of the war on Ukrainian society.
Germany and the USA are seen as the main architects behind the decision to come up with an annual plan for implementing NATO prerequisites. Washington no longer appears to be “the leader of the free world” in the context of the summit in Vilnius, Yevropeiska Pravda writes, which could mean the USA is afraid of making bold decisions when it comes to the Russian-Ukrainian war.
The USA is also criticized for its poor and deficient assessment of the situation in Ukraine and the possible response of Ukrainian society. The Ukrainian publication does not rule out the possibility that Ukraine’s NATO accession could become a point on the agenda of backstage American-Russian negotiations. “What happens if peace in Ukraine will be proposed at the cost of Ukraine’s NATO accession?”, Yevropeiska Pravda also writes.
The same publication also claims the vision of NATO states is at odds with the statements of president Volodymyr Zelenskyy. “Despite the many statements made by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who claimed that the only condition to Ukraine’s NATO accession was the end of the war, Allies in Western Europe and the USA beg to differ”, Yevropeiska Pravda writes, recommending Kyiv authorities stop delaying the implementation of political reforms in spite of the military operations on Ukraine’s territory.
Ukrainians want assurances
Political analysts in Ukraine claim Western countries are cautious when it comes to NATO accession. “The summit in Vilnius has shown that Western states are unwilling to cross their self-imposed red lines. I’m not referring to Moscow’s red lines, but to the very ones drawn by the West. Still, if we consider that in these 500 days of war we have received weapons and assistance worth tens of billions of dollars, we understand that some red lines have already been crossed. We should not be critical of the West now, not after our ambition to join NATO has been nothing but rhetoric in the last 26 years. The West faces various challenges in terms of internal developments and circumstances, but despite all that it actively supports Ukraine”, Yevhen Mahda, the director of the Institute of World Policy in Kyiv, has told Preamyi TV station.
The political expert also believes no one in the West is quick to provide Kyiv with security guarantees for fear of legitimizing the Kremlin’s propaganda narratives about NATO being an aggressive military alliance. For this reason, security guarantees for Ukraine were discussed in the G7 format, without referring to this topic in official NATO resolutions or press releases. Volodymyr Zelenskyy needs to do everything in his power to implement the reforms requested by the West and to rid the Ukrainian political class of shady individuals suspected of working with Russia, Mahda also argues.
On a different note, the Ukrainian journalist Vitaly Portnikov explained that expectations at the level of Ukrainian society with respect to NATO run very high in the context of the war in Ukraine. Ukrainians were hopeful about a clear-cut decision, a timetable, an accession roadmap, neither of which were settled. According to the Ukrainian journalist, the West’s approach differs from Ukraine’s. “Ukrainians believe they are paying in blood for their Euro-Atlantic orientation and want more certainty in their country’s relations with NATO”, Portnikov writes.
Reactions to the NATO summit were different in Ukraine and the West
The Ukrainian society’s overoptimistic expectations ahead of the NATO summit in Vilnius were determined by Russia’s large-scale invasion of Ukraine, as well as by Kyiv’s official statements, which used the question of European and Euro-Atlantic accession as an incentive to bolster national resistance.
The reactions of the Ukrainian media illustrate a nationwide disappointment with the results of the summit, which failed to rally the necessary political will to officially invite Ukraine into NATO. At the same time, opposition forces and some political analysts have voiced harsh criticism against the Zelenskyy administration, whom they deem responsible for this failure.
Nevertheless, there is widespread consensus in Kyiv over the need to implement the reforms requested by the West. Therefore, the Ukrainian leadership will be under increasing pressure to deliver these reforms without further delays.
Thus, Ukrainians believe NATO’s decisions in Vilnius are interpreted differently by Ukraine and its Western partners. From the West’s standpoint, the postponement of Ukraine’s NATO accession means avoiding a direct confrontation with Russia, while to some politicians in Kyiv, NATO accession is the only key to ending the war.
