Question:
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) held its summit in Lithuania, one of the Baltic republics located on Russia's border, on July 11 and 12, 2023. What resulted from this summit? Why was Ukraine's request to join NATO rejected? And where are the events of the war in Ukraine heading?
Answer:
To clarify the answer to the above questions, we review the following matters:
The final communiqué of the NATO summit contained about 90 items, some related to the war between Ukraine and Russia, and others related to various issues. It was a comprehensive statement covering international issues relevant to the hegemony and influence of America in particular, and the West in general, over the world. There are clauses related to Russia, the war in Ukraine, China, the Indo-Pacific regions and their countries, relations with the European Union, the Middle East, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, and Africa. In it, Western arrogance and global control appear, asserting its leadership over the world. It displays the Western threat to others and the attempt to impose hegemony. It planned for the future to ensure Western hegemony led by America—rather, American hegemony in the name of the NATO alliance. America is almost jubilant at achieving a major feat for NATO, indeed imposing its hegemony over its member states, including those of the European Union. It worked to strengthen it by expanding its scope to include Finland and Sweden after Erdogan's Turkey approved their membership. This dealt a severe blow to French-led European attempts to escape American hegemony and build an independent European force to bolster the EU, which has become weak and submissive to America. This follows French President Macron’s description of NATO in November 2019 as being "brain dead," calling for Europe to have its own force. This provoked America, making it insist on strengthening NATO; thus, the Ukraine war came as a golden opportunity to prevent Europe from stepping out from under the mantle of American hegemony and arrogance.
Regarding Ukraine, America refused to admit it to the alliance at the present time. US President Biden said at the conclusion of the summit: "NATO leaders agreed that Ukraine would be a member after the war" (BBC, 12/07/2023). US State Department spokesperson Elizabeth Stickney stated, "Ukraine's membership in NATO is not possible at the current time; it is not on the table during the war, and Washington's priority at the NATO summit includes continued support for Ukraine" (Sky News, Al Jazeera, 11/07/2023). The final communiqué approved by NATO leaders stated: "Ukraine’s future is in NATO... Kyiv’s Euro-Atlantic integration has moved beyond the need for a Membership Action Plan." The statement added: "We will be in a position to extend an invitation to Ukraine to join the Alliance when Allies agree and conditions are met" (Al Jazeera, 11/07/2023). Although NATO leaders did not go as far as issuing an invitation to Kyiv or announcing a timetable for the accession it seeks, they did remove the requirement to fulfill the so-called Membership Action Plan (MAP), effectively removing an obstacle that was in Ukraine's path. This means that as soon as the war ends, Ukraine will be annexed to NATO, and perhaps circumstances will change, forcing NATO countries to annex Ukraine, or the position of America—the decision-maker in the alliance—will change and announce its annexation. Thus, Russia has failed in all its calculations regarding its declaration of war on Ukraine.
The American position angered Ukrainian President Zelensky. He wrote on Twitter angrily while heading to the conference upon learning the content of the final communiqué: "It is unprecedented and absurd when a time frame is not set neither for the invitation nor for Ukraine's membership. Uncertainty is weakness, and the lack of an agreed-upon timeframe means his country's membership could eventually become a bargaining chip." Usually, final communiqués are initially prepared by the decision-maker and then discussed in summits and conferences, where necessary amendments are made or they are approved as they are. Members of the American delegation were angry at Zelensky's outburst and urged him to calm down and accept the security assistance he had been promised. Zelensky silenced his criticism and changed his statements, saying: "NATO will give Ukraine security, and Ukraine will make the Alliance stronger" (BBC, 12/07/2023). Note that NATO announced in 2008 its commitment to working toward Ukraine's future membership. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said that the failure of NATO allies to set a timetable for Ukraine's membership upset President Zelensky. However, he "stressed the continued support of NATO for Ukraine" and announced "the agreement of alliance members on a comprehensive defense plan to confront Russia and support Kyiv militarily" (Al Jazeera, 11/07/2023). America refused Ukraine's membership for now because it does not want to get involved in a direct war by sending its soldiers to fight there, as Article 5 of the Washington Treaty (founding NATO on 04/04/1949) stipulates that an attack on any member is an attack on all. America wants to send equipment and weapons to kill Russians and Ukrainians until Russia is defeated, after which Ukraine will join NATO and American forces will enter, establishing military bases not far from the Russian capital, Moscow.
The communiqué, as published by many media outlets, emphasized that "the allies will continue to work closely together to address the threats and challenges posed by Russia, and that Russia represents the greatest threat to the security of NATO allies and to peace in the Euro-Atlantic region." Item 34 of the statement says: "In response to a radically changed security environment, we are strengthening the Alliance's collective defense against all threats from all directions. Since 2014 (when Russia annexed Crimea and reinforced its presence in eastern Ukraine), and especially at the 2022 Madrid Summit, we have taken decisions to strengthen our position and set a clear path for accelerated military adaptation. Today we have agreed on significant measures to further strengthen NATO's deterrence and defense posture in all areas, including strengthening forward defenses and the Alliance's ability to rapidly reinforce any threatened Ally. We will fully implement these measures and deny any potential adversary any potential opportunities for aggression..." In the NATO summit in Madrid in June 2022, the new Strategic Concept document was issued, in which Russia was considered the greatest and most direct threat to the security of the allies, while China was not considered so but was seen as posing a challenge to the alliance's interests and values. The statement held "Russia responsible for everything happening in Ukraine and the threat to security and peace in Europe, and indeed in other parts of the world," noting that "Russia has increased its buildup in multiple areas and its presence in the Baltic, Black, and Mediterranean seas, and maintains significant military capabilities in the Arctic." It accused Russia of conducting provocative activities near NATO borders, conducting large-scale maneuvers without notification, and fueling tensions in NATO's southern neighborhood, especially the Middle East, North Africa, and the Sahel. Nevertheless, the statement said, "The Alliance does not seek confrontation with Russia," and "The Alliance does not pose a threat to it, but its hostile policies and actions do not make it a partner for us" (Al Jazeera, 11/07/2023). This is an attempt to confuse Russia and make it delude itself into thinking the West might have mercy on it or reach an understanding with it. This leaves Russia hesitant between the hope of an understanding to escape the Ukraine trap in a way that saves face—after getting embroiled without achieving its goals, which have become difficult to achieve—and the despair of such an understanding while floundering in this swamp for a longer, uncertain period. With this ambiguous situation and the long duration of the war, where the West, led by America, seeks to prolong it to achieve its goals, it appears that all Western countries, along with Japan, have now adopted the American viewpoint, which is the defeat of Russia and changing the situation within it, especially its political leadership. On the sidelines of the conference, G7 leaders issued a statement expressing "support for Ukraine in its defense against Russian aggression for as long as it takes" (BBC, 12/07/2023).
They praised their nuclear capabilities and announced they would work to develop them, as stated in Item 44: "The Alliance’s strategic nuclear forces, particularly those of the United States, are the supreme guarantee of the security of the Alliance. NATO will take all necessary steps to ensure the credibility, effectiveness, safety, and security of its nuclear deterrence. This will include continuing to modernize NATO's nuclear capability and increase flexibility and adaptability." They issued veiled threats to Russia in case it uses nuclear weapons in the war with Ukraine, saying, "Any use of nuclear weapons against NATO would fundamentally alter the nature of the conflict (in Ukraine)." NATO countries confirmed in their recent meeting in Item 28 that they "will spend a minimum of 2% of annual GDP on military spending with the aim of maintaining technological superiority and continuing to modernize and reform NATO forces. This means a new arms race." They will work on "modernizing NATO for a new era of collective defense and that members are united in their commitment and determination to prevail against any aggressor and defend all allied territory across the Alliance on land, in the air, and at sea," as stated in the communiqué items. The West, led by America, is working to develop its nuclear capabilities and threatens to use them, and to develop its military capabilities in all fields, while it fights any country working to possess nuclear capabilities or develop them or its own military capabilities. They condemned the nuclear activities of Iran and North Korea and the latter’s missile tests, as mentioned in items 56, 57, and 84.
Regarding China, it was mentioned in items 6, 23, 24, 25, and 55, where they condemned China's "stated ambitions and coercive policies challenge our interests, security and values." They considered China "opaque about its strategy, intentions and military build-up," seeing that "China’s malicious hybrid and cyber operations and its confrontational rhetoric and disinformation target Allies and harm Alliance security." They stated that "it uses its economic leverage to create strategic dependencies and enhance its influence... It strives to subvert the rules-based international order, including in the space, cyber and maritime domains. It also seeks to control key technological and industrial sectors, critical infrastructure, and strategic materials and supply chains." They called on China to "play a constructive role as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, to condemn Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, to refrain from supporting Russia’s war effort in any way... and to cease amplifying Russia’s false narrative blaming Ukraine and NATO for Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine." At the same time, they affirmed their "commitment to remain open to constructive engagement with China, including reciprocal transparency with a view to safeguarding strategic interests." They did not declare China a direct threat to the West and NATO, though they condemned its ambitions that threaten their interests and global hegemony—namely, Western hegemony led by America. They considered its military strategy and intentions opaque. We pointed out this issue in a Q&A titled "Blinken’s Visit to China" dated July 3, 2023, saying: "One of the important objectives of this visit that was not achieved is that America wanted to open a communication channel between Chinese and American military officials, for purposes akin to espionage! It seems China realized this and rejected these channels categorically." They focused on regional partnerships as mentioned in Article 85, where they referred to "Chinese threats in the Indo-Pacific region." They considered that "developments there directly affect Euro-Atlantic security" and welcomed "the participation of partners Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea and the strengthening of cooperative dialogue with them." America is working to exercise all pressures on China and has begun using NATO to increase these pressures.
The statement touched upon Western hegemony over the Middle East and Africa, as mentioned in items 82 and 83, stating: "The Middle East and Africa are regions of strategic importance. We will deepen our political engagement and public diplomacy outreach to our long-standing partners in the Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative. We will also increase our outreach to relevant regional organizations, including the African Union and the Gulf Cooperation Council... The Alliance is implementing capacity-building packages for Iraq, Jordan, Mauritania, and Tunisia, and it will engage with the Jordanian authorities to explore the possibility of establishing a NATO Liaison Office in Amman." It focused on "supporting Iraq and achieving stability there, fighting ISIS, and based on a request from the Iraqi government, we are considering expanding NATO's mission in Iraq to provide advice to the Iraqi Ministry of Interior regarding the federal police." This means NATO considers this region a purely Western sphere of influence, where America works to strengthen its influence, and America works to deceive NATO into thinking it is working for its benefit in these two regions, which witness competition for influence among its states, especially between America, Britain, and France.
The idea of blocs is one of the most dangerous ideas for the world, as mentioned in our book, Political Concepts of Hizb ut-Tahrir. It has caused world wars in the past, as well as aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. The Warsaw Pact, which was a rival to NATO and posed a danger to the West, has ended; thus, NATO should have been dissolved. However, America was keen on its survival to maintain its hegemony over Western countries, especially the European Union, and to use it against other countries. Therefore, this alliance is the most dangerous bloc for the fate of humanity, which has never known a bloc of its size and strength in history. It includes countries with weapons of mass destruction and industrial and technological capabilities, led by America—the largest and most dangerous colonial state, which used nuclear weapons in Japan. It insists on expanding and strengthening it to increase the threat of devastating wars in the world and to extend its influence everywhere, imposing its hegemony on all countries. Working to strengthen and expand it is a crime against humanity and causes destructive wars of aggression, as its member states dare to transgress against others because many states stand behind them, making human and material losses many times greater. There is no cure for this problem except by fighting the idea of blocs and the existence of NATO, asserting that there is no justification for its existence as it is aggressive, by creating a global public opinion regarding this. From here, the world has become in need of a state to save it from this situation, and there is none but the Islamic Khilafah state worthy of performing this task, which will be a good for humanity and a mercy to the worlds.
وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَاكَ إِلَّا رَحْمَةً لِلْعَالَمِينَ
"And We have not sent you, [O Muhammad], except as a mercy to the worlds." (QS Al-Anbiya [21]: 107)
30 Dhu al-Hijjah 1444 AH Corresponding to July 18, 2023 CE