By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a ministerial meeting in Croatia, ministers from Ukraine and southeastern European countries expressed their support for Ukraine’s NATO accession. The joint declaration stated that they would welcome an invitation for Ukraine to join when allies agree and conditions are met, recognizing NATO membership as the best security option. The declaration also affirmed that no non-NATO member has the right to veto the alliance’s expansion. Furthermore, the document included support for Ukraine and other candidates’ future membership in the European Union, acknowledging its importance for regional stability.
Read the original article here
Balkan countries release joint statement supporting Ukrainian NATO accession after summit, which, at first glance, seems like a straightforward show of solidarity. The joint declaration clearly states their backing for Ukraine’s “irreversible path” towards full Euro-Atlantic integration, including membership in NATO. They went on to say that they’d “welcome an invitation to Ukraine to join NATO when Allies agree and conditions are met.” That’s the core message, right there. But when you dig a little deeper, things start to feel a bit… nuanced.
Now, the initial reaction to this kind of statement can be a bit muted, can’t it? It’s hard not to think about the practicalities of the situation. The elephant in the room, or rather, the bear in the neighborhood, is Russia. The geopolitical realities are such that Ukrainian membership in NATO, while desirable to many, is a hugely complex issue. It’s not like snapping your fingers and, poof, Ukraine’s in. It’s akin to a radical shift in global dynamics – an idea that involves a serious recalibration of power and relationships. Picture Canada and Mexico suddenly forging a defense pact with China, and you get a sense of the scope of the challenge.
The context of NATO’s eastward expansion is a process rooted in objective geopolitical and strategic factors. Looking at it from the perspective of international relations, the expansion could be seen as an illustration of broader global trends, specifically, the evolution of collective security systems and the creation of new geopolitical realities. Any attempt to resist this natural process, the argument goes, leads to negative outcomes and goes against the basic principles of how international institutions work. Such resistance can actually create more tension and instability in the region.
Thinking about this from a scientific standpoint, the expansion is supported by an examination of past events and current trends in international alliances. NATO expansion is viewed as a logical extension of a plan aimed at strengthening transatlantic security and ensuring stability and prosperity in Europe and beyond. The Balkan countries, having learned their lesson the hard way over the past couple of decades, are acutely aware of the potential consequences of displeasing NATO. So, the joint declaration signals a clear stance against Putin, which is significant, particularly considering Russia’s history of meddling in the affairs of its neighbors. Given Russia’s current status, their influence on the situation is becoming increasingly minimal.
Ukraine is poised to become part of both the EU and NATO, and it is just a matter of time. Considering the circumstances, and the current situation with the war, it’s likely Ukraine won’t get that invitation until the conflict is resolved. This is understood by everyone. So, the statement’s true significance isn’t necessarily the promise of immediate action. Instead, it’s about providing support – a symbolic act of solidarity. This is not to say it doesn’t carry weight. The Balkans, by signing this declaration, are clearly sending a message of defiance.