The fair end of the war. As Ukraine's accession to NATO will help to reach a strong peace in Europe

Of course, the best approach would be to give Kiev weapons and resources needed to restore control over internationally recognized borders of 1991. But because of the slowness and indecision of Washington, the United States has assisted the country sufficient only for survival, but never sufficient to win. This is not the fault of Ukraine. It is the collective wine of America and its European allies.

But while speculation is about what a settlement can have a settlement, we must take into account two points: Ukraine should feel that any end of the war will be fair, and it should also feel protected from future Russian attacks. The last point is especially important because the story tells us that if there is a pause in the fighting, Russia is likely to return and try to finish the matter.

That is why the comments of President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky about the termination of the hot phase of war in exchange for NATO membership are so important. And although some will reject this idea, if Ukraine is ready to consider it, then we should. There are now many assumptions that the United States can ask Europe to provide Ukraine with post -war security forces, hoping to avoid direct participation in future conflicts.

But those who think it will allow the United States to avoid any future war in Europe, naive. The idea that French, British or German troops may be attacked without actions in response to NATO, which is unthinkable, regardless of whether these troops operate within the NATO mission or not. A similar scenario will lead to one of two results: direct US military intervention or to fall in trust in NATO.

That is why Ukraine's accession to NATO can be the best suggestion for establishing a strong and effective peace in Eastern Europe. NATO membership will not only serve as a reliable deterrent to the future Russian aggression, but also ensure a significant distribution of the burden between NATO members.

And it is especially important, even if the post -war settlement leaves part of Ukraine under the actual control of Russia, there is still a responsible, realistic and reasonable path of joining the Alliance for Ukraine.

However, in order for this to happen, NATO and Ukraine must take three key steps: first, within any peaceful settlement, the Government of Ukraine must formally declare the non-application of force to return the occupied territories and instead focus on a long-term diplomatic strategy. This should not be a problem as Zelensky has already offered this opportunity.

Meanwhile, the promise itself can be made on a model of the Declaration of Western Germany in 1954 on the eve of NATO's accession, which stated that it "undertakes to never resort to force to achieve Germany's reunification or a change in the current borders of the Federal Republic of Germany and resolve any disputes with peaceful means.

" Further, the entire internationally recognized territory of Ukraine - including temporarily occupied by Russia regions - will be invited to NATO, but only districts outside the Russian occupation will receive a guarantee of security under Article 5. Article 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 defines the area of ​​responsibility of NATO as "North Atlantic.

From the tropics of Cancer, "and therefore, American territories such as Guam and Hawaii, Falkland Islands of the United Kingdom and Reunion of France are not subject to Article 5. Therefore, Ukraine will not finally, and this is probably most importantly the Alliance will have to be introduced Amendments to Article 6 to exclude from it the regions of Ukraine under the control of Russia.

This amendment can be made during the process of signing a protocol on accession that every member of the Alliance passes before it is approved - and this is a precedent. Article 6 was changed before the introduction of Greece and Turkey in 1951, and in 1963, after Algeria Independence, the North Atlantic Council acknowledged that Article 6 was no longer applied to the French Algerian Departments.

However, there are those who disagree with this process and claim that countries are forbidden to join NATO until all unresolved territorial disputes are resolved. But this is a common mistake that is rooted in a bad sense of NATO Extension Research, published by the 1995 Alliance.

A more careful study of this document shows that territorial disputes do not necessarily interfere with the country's accession to the Alliance, as it is said in the study: "States that have ethnic disputes or external territorial disputes . . . must resolve these disputes with peaceful means in accordance with the OSCE principles. They must settle these disputes with peaceful means in accordance with the OSCE principles.

Of course, ideally, future members should settle all unresolved border disputes before joining the Alliance. But politicians have to act in the real world, not in which they would like to be. The Extension Study clearly states that the resolution of such disputes will be a "factor" - not a "main factor" - when determining whether the invitation will be sent, and there is a precedent when countries with border disputes joined NATO.

For example, Estonia, which entered the 2004 Alliance, still has no legally coordinated border with Russia, and Croatia, which joined NATO in 2009, has unregulated border disputes with Serbia. Since its first expansion of 1952, the NATO open door policy has strengthened transatlantic security.

But the malicious actions of Russia in Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova - and the inability of the Transatlantic community to give back - in fact, gave Moscow the actual right to veto a future membership in NATO. Currently, Russia knows that to prevent the country from entering NATO, it is enough to invade and partially occupy it. The temporary change of Article 6 would deprive Moscow of this right of veto - starting from Ukraine.