Hoping that someone will fight for us or that we'll quickly join NATO is just wishful thinking

For years, I've been hearing from Ukrainian politicians that Ukraine is getting closer to joining NATO. And for years, I've been saying it's a pipe dream because as long as the war with Russia continues, no one will take us in, says Ukrainian political scientist Nikolai Kapitonienko

Interview with Nikolai Kapitonenko, PhD in Political Science, Associate Professor at the Institute of International Relations of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, and Director of the Center for International Relations Studies.

Victoria Bieliashyn: Ukrainian authorities did not hide their high hopes for the NATO summit in Washington. To what extent were these hopes fulfilled, and what was missing?

Nikolai Kapitonenko: I think this time the hopes were lower than usual. Until now, before the NATO summit, we always expected to receive an invitation to join the Alliance. This year, no one expected it, so the disappointment is certainly less than after last year’s summit in Vilnius. This year, Ukraine’s hopes were tied to securing more military aid that wouldn’t heavily depend on the results of the US presidential elections. In this regard, the goals were roughly achieved, although it’s still not enough: I’m talking about financial support, as well as the quantity and type of military equipment that’s supposed to reach Ukraine.

Is NATO's assistance insufficient to win the war against Russia?

It depends on how we define "victory". If we consider it to mean that Ukraine survives, remains a democratic and developing state, and Russia never attacks again, then I think NATO’s and the West’s help might be enough, provided there’s more of it.

The situation is different if "victory" means what Volodymyr Zelensky outlines in his peace formula: restoring the 1991 borders, holding Russia criminally accountable, securing reparations, etc. I fear that even with Western assistance, achieving these goals will be extremely difficult. Moreover, everyone understands that the West’s primary goal is to ensure Ukraine does not lose.

You emphasize that the scale of support, even for achieving the first scenario, is insufficient.

Everything boils down to a budget of 40 billion euros annually and yearly arms deliveries. This wouldn’t have been a bad option three years ago when Russia’s war budget was estimated at around 60 billion dollars. However, today Russia’s war budget is twice as large.

That’s why I fear the help Ukraine can count on will prove insufficient. Additionally, part of this amount will be spent on arms production in the member states of the Alliance.

In your writings, you often criticize Ukrainian politicians for placing too much hope in the West.

Now we can only count on the West. I criticize them for their earlier decisions. There were different ways to build Ukraine’s relations with the West, to create a more effective security system. The hope that someone will fight for us or that we will quickly be accepted into the EU or NATO is unrealistic and unfounded. For years, I’ve been hearing from Ukrainian politicians that Ukraine is getting closer to joining NATO. And for years, I’ve been saying it’s a pipe dream because as long as the war with Russia continues, no one will take us in.

Meanwhile, many in Ukraine think that the very fact that we are fighting and standing up for European values is enough.

And it isn’t?

Of course not. NATO’s task is to reduce the risk and threat to its member states. Accepting Ukraine into NATO now would lead to exactly the opposite. No one wants to fight Russia, so there aren’t many advocates for Ukraine’s quick accession to the North Atlantic Alliance.

One of the NATO member states that "doesn’t see" Ukraine in NATO right now is the United States, currently led by Joe Biden. But what if Donald Trump comes to power again? Are Ukrainians worried about that?

The US presidential elections are viewed in Ukraine more as an internal American issue. No one knows what changes will actually occur if Trump wins. The narrative is one thing, but the decisions the US president will make are another. Regardless of who wins, it’s clear that Ukraine will have issues with American assistance. There will be delays, there will be less of it than needed, and there will be new conditions and dependencies. I believe this is because there is a lack of understanding and a clear vision in the US about how this war should end. Financial calculations are, of course, a factor, but so are other international problems and the resulting weakening of the US's role in the world. The United States will therefore be more cautious.

And what about Donald Trump’s unpredictability, who, unlike Biden, managed to find common ground with Vladimir Putin?

I think if Trump wins, his presidency will be different from the previous one. The world is facing entirely different problems now, so I wouldn’t predict clear similarities or a repeat scenario. Of course, it’s possible Trump might try to strike a deal with Putin, but Ukraine is working to safeguard against that by signing bilateral security agreements with its allies.

President Volodymyr Zelensky signed such an agreement with Poland in Warsaw last week. Previously, twenty other countries had signed similar documents with Ukraine. What is the significance of these agreements for Ukraine?

These agreements allow Ukraine to rely on financial aid from other countries in case issues arise with American support. However, they are not groundbreaking guarantees. None of the signatories commit to joining the war against Russia. Signing the agreement is essentially formalizing the assistance already being provided in specific amounts and forms, which helps Ukraine avoid defeat.

This week, various declarations came from Western politicians. One could hear, among other things, that the West is doing everything to ensure Ukraine's victory. Do you agree with that?

No, I don’t think the West is doing everything to ensure Ukraine's victory. They are doing a lot to ensure Ukraine doesn’t lose. The West could supply much more weaponry to Ukraine, provide more money, and intensify anti-Russian sanctions. The thing is, all this comes with costs and risks.

You recently pointed out that in today’s world, it’s easier to start wars than to end them. What, in your opinion, is the most realistic scenario for Ukraine today?

In my view, the war will last a long time, and its continuation will resemble what we’ve seen since the beginning of 2024: shelling, minor changes along the front line. Wars are harder to end today because the political cost of compromise is prohibitive. It’s easier for leaders to continue fighting than to take risks and face the unpredictable consequences of concessions.

We also live in an era of a new wave of nationalism. This ideology sanctifies territory: for its adherents, territorial concessions are too painful. Let’s not forget that agreements aimed at freezing or ending the war require a minimal level of trust or the involvement of third parties that can compensate for the lack of it. We have neither.

Translation: Patrycja Eiduka

This article was written in the framework of The Eastern Frontier Initiative (TEFI) project. TEFI is a collaboration of independent publishers from Central and Eastern Europe, to foster common thinking and cooperation on European security issues in the region. The project aims to promote knowledge sharing in the European press and contribute to a more resilient European democracy.

Members of the consortium are 444 (Hungary), Gazeta Wyborcza (Poland), SME (Slovakia), PressOne (Romania), and Bellingcat (The Netherlands).

The TEFI project is co-financed by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). Neither the European Union nor EACEA can be held responsible for them.