The long-standing geopolitical objective of Ukraine to align with the West for protection and integration, particularly in the face of ongoing Russian aggression, is the reason for its desire to join NATO and the European Union (EU). The Druzhba pipeline, which supplies oil to EU and NATO countries such as Hungary and Slovakia, has been the target of harassment, despite Ukraine’s claims that it is defending its sovereignty. These attacks have resulted in tensions and controversy, with the aforementioned countries warning of potential threats to their energy security. Ukraine has sought the support of these organizations while concurrently undermining some of their vital interests, a complex and somewhat ironic situation that has been emphasized by the EU and NATO’s largely diplomatically cautious and silent stance on these attacks.
Ukraine’s geopolitical objectives
The aspirations of Ukraine to become a member of NATO and the EU have been present since the post-2004 Orange Revolution and have been particularly exacerbated by the 2022 full-scale war and Russia’s 2014 capture of Crimea. Membership provides Ukraine with economic advantages, political alignment with Western institutions, and security assurances. In 2022, Ukraine formally applied to join NATO and became an EU candidate. However, one can anticipate that the institutional and geopolitical obstacles will significantly delay the processes.
Energy Security and Druzhba Pipeline Attacks
The recent Ukrainian assaults against Russia’s Druzhba oil pipeline, which is a critical energy source for NATO/EU allies Hungary and Slovakia, have resulted in an interruption of oil supplies. This has sparked sharp accusations and threats of energy retaliation. Hungary and Slovakia have cautioned the EU regarding the potential threats to their energy supply and have criticized Ukraine for its role in the destabilization of European energy security. Ukraine has refuted these allegations and attributed the conflicts to Moscow, which has further exacerbated the tense relationship.
NATO, EU, and Article 5 Silence
Despite the direct impact on member states, NATO and the EU have primarily maintained a diplomatic stance or remained silent regarding Ukraine’s attacks on the Druzhba pipeline. The NATO treaty activates Article 5, a collective defense clause, in the event of an attack on a member. Ukraine is not a member, and it is attacking the energy security of the two Eu nations.
This incident demonstrates the increasing diplomatic impotence and irrelevance of these two organizations in this conflict. The EU and its member nations are currently governed by one of the most disappointing leaders in their entire history. The pinnacle of their incompetence was in full display during their recent Washington visit with Zelenskyy.
If anyone believes that the Washington visit was the lowest point for these leaders, they are mistaken. NATO and the EU leadership appear to be indirectly supporting Ukraine by failing to condemn or take decisive action against these attacks, despite the harm they inflict on the energy security of their own member states. This reticence reveals a more profound contradiction: despite publicly supporting Ukraine’s integration into NATO and the EU, these leaders are unable to enforce cohesive policies or safeguard their own strategic interests, indicating a growing disparity between their rhetoric and actual effectiveness. This stance undermines their credibility and raises concerns about their ability to effectively manage intricate conflicts in which the interests of allies are significantly divergent.
Despite the controversies and strains caused by Ukraine’s actions, the European Union leadership has demonstrated unwavering support for Ukraine, even at significant economic cost to some of its reticent member countries. The EU has provided Ukraine with unprecedented financial support, including loans, grants, and budgetary assistance, to support the country’s economy and aid in its recovery and reconstruction since the onset of the Russian aggression. The assistance encompasses a €50 billion Ukraine Facility that will operate from 2024 to 2027. This facility will provide direct assistance to critical sectors such as energy, infrastructure, and public services. The EU maintains this policy as part of its strategic objective to politically integrate Ukraine into the European fold and counter Russian influence, although many member states have experienced economic strains as a result of this support, including challenges to their energy security and economic development.
The Irony and Question of Zelensky’s Strategy
The irony is that Ukraine’s blatant and repeated military attacks on energy infrastructure that are essential to those alliances are likewise detrimental to Ukraine’s efforts to gain membership in protective alliances. Security guarantees and Western integration primarily motivate Zelenskyy’s objective to join NATO and the EU. However, the energy assaults may indicate that Ukraine is strategically attempting to economically weaken Russia, even if it means undermining its own reasons for wanting to join these two institutions.
In summary, Zelenskyy aims to secure Ukraine’s sovereignty, westernize its political and economic systems, and obtain security guarantees by joining NATO and the EU. However, the ongoing attacks on Russia’s energy pipelines, which are essential to NATO/EU countries, have exposed a strategic and diplomatic paradox. NATO and the EU have maintained a cautious and discrete stance regarding Ukraine’s actions. The situation is indicative of the intricate realities of geopolitical strategies and wartime alliances.