Zaluzhnyi on NATO Membership Standards
GeopoliticsComments
This is the Israel model. Why bother with the formal club when you can get the weapons and the intel without the membership obligations?
If membership is viewed as unrealistic, could that hypothetically lower the political risk for NATO members to provide long-range capabilities, since the Article 5 trigger is no longer the primary focus?
I wonder if he is talking about the technical interoperability of their communication systems... or maybe the specific chain of command protocols... which one is the bigger hurdle here?
The full assessment also highlights the issue of civilian control over the military, which is a non-negotiable NATO requirement that remains a friction point in Kyiv.
I disagree that the goal is a fantasy. The effort to align with these standards has already professionalized the Ukrainian officer corps in ways that would have been impossible five years ago.
Zaluzhnyi is now a diplomat in London. This shift in role likely alters his objective from battlefield efficiency to managing Western expectations.
This feels like 2008 all over again. Are we just returning to the strategy of promising membership 'in the future' to keep a partner motivated without actually intending to let them in?
The OP is right. You can't just 'standardize' an army when you have ten different types of artillery shells and a mix of legacy Soviet gear that doesn't talk to NATO systems.