Following the elections in the United States and the re-election of President Donald Trump, geopolitics on the other side of the Atlantic have taken a different twist. Whereas in the past three years Ukraine secured multibillion military aid to resist the Russian invasion, with Donald Trump in the White House, this is going to be revisited.
In one of the debates President Trump stated that the war in Ukraine must have never started, had there been proper global leaders to mediate. Indeed, this week President Volodymyr Zelensky suggested that the war in Ukraine must stop through a temporary peace agreement. Zelenskyy suggested to give up the lost territory, thereby appeasing Vladimir Putin by ceding its lost territory including Crimea to Russia. He suggested to base this temporary peace agreement in exchange of Ukraine joining NATO.
What irked my eye though was not the proposal of President Zelenskyy to join NATO but the rushed decision to propose a temporary peace deal, before even Trump was sworn in to office. There are two outliers here, and I will explain. With President Joe Biden, Zelenskyy was certain to secure funding, as well as multibillion military aid. However, with Trump not yet sworn in to office, Zelenskyy is certain that funding and multibillion military aid will not reach Ukraine. This means that once President Biden is out of office Zelenskyy cannot secure funding with certainty. And what this certainty truly means we still do not know. Let’s for a while ignore the media speculation and conspiracy theories of the connection between the relatives of the sitting president of the USA and Ukraine. Certainly, the latest emerging news of President Biden authorising a full and unconditional pardon to his son Hunter, is a little bizarre in a democracy, and it is reinforcing such conspiracy theories.
True, it might be the case that the president’s son was politically targeted. We know how the system works, and we can relate to such stories because politically motivated frame-ups did happen, even in Malta. However, it is not up to the politician to decide but to an independent institution. I hope that those carrying forensic accounting are, ahem, warranted accountants. What I want to outline is that on the eve of the OSCE meeting in Malta, Ukraine must not aim for NATO membership. They know that this is a redline for Russia. In fact, when in 2020 Ukraine approved its new National Security Strategy, which provides for additional capacity building for the development of a distinctive partnership with NATO and its eventual aim to NATO membership, surely reinforced the conflict. I believe it was politically ill-timed. In response, Moscow prepared for a full-scale invasion to show that there must be security guarantees also for Russia, which Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov always cites, as the indivisibility concept between the security provided in Europe and NATO. When I called for diplomacy, back in 2021, several observers on the social media were telling me that I am a Putin apologist and appeaser. Three years later, the war left many impoverished, internally displaced people, and thousands of Ukrainians searching for refuge in the EU. It is indeed a frozen conflict.
Obviously, the EU cannot offset the military aid that the USA will not provide to Ukraine once Trump is sworn in to office. Most of the EU’s economies are indebted, and electoral anger is slowly piling up. Our eyes are on Romania, a NATO ally. Also, Ursula von der Leyen is set to lead the European Commission for the next five years with several EU leaders struggling to have their budget greenlit. It is truly the economic effect of what happened in 2022, including the sanctions as well as the mishandling of the diplomatic relations. Indeed, the current president of the EU Commission will be remembered as the most divisive and controlling figure. I won’t say more, though. However, the best diplomatic and political chess moves to strategise at this point in time is to expediate Ukraine’s EU membership. They must be diplomatically tactful. The Treaty of Lisbon provides for Article 42.7. What does this mean? It is about mutual defence, and it states that “If a member state is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other member states shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain member states”.
It is akin to NATO’s Article 5, that is, Collective Defence. However, Article 42.7 involves only EU member states, with the majority of them being NATO members. Such strategy would still leave room for manoeuvre to those member states that are non-NATO members including Malta, Cyprus, Austria and Ireland, and provides diplomatic leverage to calm the other party in conflict down. It also provides additional security for non-NATO countries that are members of the EU. In such a case, once an EU member state, Ukraine would still be integrated under EU security and qualifying to invoke Article 42.7 and Article 222 of the Solidarity Clause, lest it is victim of armed aggression. Also, Ukraine can explore additional partnership programmes with NATO, and through other EU missions, not least, reinforcing such programmes under the EU-NATO cooperation programmes.
For instance, in February Malta and NATO agreed on a new framework of cooperation termed as the new Individually Tailored Partnership Programme (ITPP), even though Malta is a non-NATO member. This programme replaces the preceding Individual Partnership and Cooperation Programme. Certainly, the new programme marks the beginning of an even closer partnership between Malta and NATO. I understand that we are also dispatching members of Parliament, from both sides of the room, to attend NATO meetings. Also, in 2023 Malta joined NATO’s planning and review programme, with the aim to support partners by identifying and developing capabilities. If I recall well, it is the equivalent of the Coordinated Annual Review on Defence of the EU, which supports member states in their efforts to smoothly implement any EU’s agreed Capability Development Priorities.
President Zelenskyy must rethink how to approach geopolitics. EU membership must be prioritised over NATO membership if they really want to advance and secure a peace deal. And please Ursula, focus on a fast-tracked EU membership for Ukraine, and not defence for now. Defence will come later!
