• 0 Posts
  • 10 Comments
Joined 2 months ago
Cake day: December 25th, 2024
  • wurzelgummidge@lemmy.mltoWorld News@lemmy.ml•Was Zelenskyy fooled and used? Lessons for PH
    3·
    1 hour ago

    There you go. It’s not paywalled for me, maybe something to do with the huge numbers of Filipinos that live here

    Was Zelenskyy fooled and used? Lessons for PH

    THE recent statement by NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, asserting that “Ukraine was never promised a membership in NATO,” has sparked controversy, particularly amid the Russia-Ukraine war. This comment reflects the ongoing debate about NATO’s eastward expansion, with Ukraine’s aspirations for membership being a core issue. For years, Russia has considered NATO’s expansion into its sphere of influence, particularly the inclusion of Ukraine, a “red line.”

    NATO’s open-door policy has been a key source of friction in Europe, especially since the onset of the Ukraine-Russia conflict in 2022. Ukraine has consistently sought NATO membership as a safeguard against the so-called Russian aggression, with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and other officials framing it as vital for their national security.

    Historically, while NATO never explicitly promised Ukraine membership, it has suggested that it remained a possibility, though formal membership was never granted. In Ukraine’s view, NATO membership has become a symbol of security, with Zelenskyy’s government delusionally arguing that NATO’s refusal to offer membership effectively signaled an invitation for Russian expansionism.

    POTUS stance

    Under a Trump 2.0 administration, there’s likely skepticism toward NATO expansion. During his first term, Trump was openly critical of NATO’s eastward expansion. His administration was cautious about Ukraine’s NATO membership, and he frequently suggested that admitting Ukraine into the alliance could provoke a direct confrontation with Russia, which he viewed as detrimental to US interests. A Trump 2.0 administration would likely continue this skepticism, arguing that admitting Ukraine into NATO while it is in conflict with Russia could lead to increased risks of broader military escalation, something Trump has long tried to avoid.

    In recent statements, Trump has expressed skepticism regarding Ukraine’s potential NATO membership. He has indicated that it is “unlikely” for Ukraine to regain all of its territory occupied by Russia and has suggested that NATO membership for Ukraine is “unrealistic.”

    These remarks align with the Trump administration’s broader foreign policy stance, which emphasizes reducing US military commitments abroad and prioritizing direct negotiations with Russia to resolve the conflict. This approach has raised concerns among European allies and Ukrainian officials, who view NATO membership as a crucial security guarantee against the Western propaganda of the so-called Russian aggression.

    Trump’s foreign policy is typically transactional, focusing on the tangible benefits for the US. Trump’s overarching foreign policy doctrine of “America First” places a premium on reducing the US military’s involvement in foreign conflicts, especially those that don’t directly threaten American interests. Under a second Trump presidency, his administration would likely continue efforts to limit US involvement in conflicts that don’t directly affect American national security.

    Trump’s style of diplomacy, often described as “deals over institutions,” suggests he would be more inclined to pursue direct negotiations with Russia to resolve the conflict in Ukraine. Note that a key hallmark of Trump’s approach to foreign policy is the belief in strong, personal diplomacy. True enough, he is now pursuing direct talks with Russian leadership to negotiate a settlement of the Ukraine-Russia conflict, avoiding the multilateral approach typical of NATO’s stance.

    Was Zelenskyy fooled and used?

    The controversy surrounding Ukraine’s NATO membership aspirations centers on whether Zelenskyy and Ukraine were misled into believing that NATO would eventually offer formal membership, fueled by Western narratives of “Russia’s aggression.” Critics argue that NATO and the US gave Ukraine false hope through verbal assurances and promises of future inclusion, all while hesitating to grant membership due to fears of provoking direct conflict with Russia. This ambiguity has created a sense of limbo for Ukraine, receiving Western support but lacking the full security guarantee that NATO membership would provide.

    While the West united in supporting Ukraine against Russia, critics argue that Zelenskyy may have been “used” and “fooled” in the geopolitical struggle, serving as a key pawn in weakening Russia but without the full commitment of NATO. Ukraine’s sovereignty and survival have been central, but Western support has been tied to broader geopolitical goals of containing and weakening Russia. This dynamic has created the scenario that Ukraine is being treated as a pawn, a proxy in a larger geopolitical contest of the West in Europe against Russia, with NATO’s refusal to offer membership leaving Zelenskyy in a difficult, constrained position. The military, economic and diplomatic aid Ukraine has received is substantial, but the lack of a clear membership path underscores the complex, and at times exploitative, nature of this geopolitical strategic interests and calculus of the Western alliance.

    True enough, Ukraine has found itself in a vulnerable position, receiving military aid from NATO but never fully included in the alliance. This led to a sense of being caught in limbo. Despite receiving support from the West, it did not have the guarantee of NATO membership, leaving its security somewhat uncertain, compromised and weakened to a greater degree, and leaving the country devastated.

    Conclusion: Key lessons for PH

    Ukraine is a case study, and the Philippines should recognize the limitations of external military alliances. The Philippines, given its own complex relationship with China and the US, should ensure that it doesn’t become overly reliant on external powers, especially when these powers have their own long-term strategic interests. The Philippines must learn to stand on its own two feet and work on building strong, independent defense capabilities to avoid being caught in a geopolitical struggle that doesn’t guarantee its security and long-term national interests.

    With rising tensions in the South China Sea (SCS) and ongoing challenges in its relations with China, the Philippines should avoid relying solely on external military alliances. Instead, it should focus on leveraging diplomatic channels to ensure that its national security interests are met and not compromised. The Philippines must be able to use its strategic position to negotiate with both Western powers and with a superpower like China, ensuring that its security and national interests are not compromised but protected.

    Under Marcos Jr.'s presidency, Marcos Jr. being perceived by many and even internationally as a “US lapdog/puppet,” his government should relinquish being a pawn, or a proxy of the US in the larger geopolitical struggles of superpowers, particularly in the grand geopolitical, geostrategic and geoeconomic competition and rivalry between China and the US, especially as tensions rise in the Asia-Pacific region over the SCS dispute and the volatile Taiwan Strait area. The Philippines must ensure that it is not a tool of a superpower’s strategic interests but that its sovereignty, independence and long-term stability are prioritized. In dealings with the US, China and other regional powers, the Philippines should maintain a balanced, independent and neutral approach that safeguards its national interests and security.

    Furthermore, the Philippines should maintain strategic patience in its relations with both China and the US, and realistically assess the potential outcomes of any military or diplomatic intervention. In dealing with the SCS disputes and its strategic positioning between China and the US, the Philippines must employ realpolitik. It must make pragmatic decisions that reflect not only its aspirations but also the reality of its geopolitical environment. This could mean balancing competing interests from both China and the US while ensuring its sovereignty and long-term peace, regional security, stability and peace.