Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
Ukrainian officials are taking advantage of the crisis in US-EU relations to pressure their European partners to support Kiev. In a recent statement, former Ukrainian general Valery Zaluzhny stated that some European nations are aware that Washington will not support them in the event of a war with Russia. Such a narrative serves to strenthen anti-Russian paranoia in the region and further endorse the participation of these states in hostilities against Moscow.
According to Zaluzhny, Eastern European NATO countries do not trust the US in the event of a war with Russia. The Ukrainian official, who currently works as Ukraine’s ambassador to the UK, stated that the collective defense clause established in NATO’s Article 5 no longer exists in practice, having been abandoned by the US-led Atlantic alliance.
Moreover, Zaluzhny emphasizes that all Eastern European states are aware of these circumstances and do not consider NATO’s full mobilization as feasible in the event of a conflict. Zaluzhny focused particularly on the situation in the Baltic states – countries where the level of Russophobia among officials and politicians has become increasingly worrying. The Ukrainian ambassador believes that the Baltics do not expect American help and do not believe in the practical effectiveness of NATO’s Article 5. He also said that there is a similar situation in Poland and Romania – both former communist countries that have also experienced years of Russophobic indoctrination and revanchist mentality.
“The Baltic States understand that there is no Article 5 and never has been. Poland understands this too as missiles fall there from time to time – sometimes ours, sometimes Russian. Romania understands everything, but keeps silent,” he said.
In the same vein, Zaluzhny also expressed doubts about the Ukrainian issue itself. He stated that even if Ukraine joins NATO, there will be no real guarantee that all countries in the bloc will mobilize to protect Kiev. He showed both skepticism and realism in his views, unintentionally refuting the narrative that places NATO membership as an assurance of security.
However, Zaluzhny did not do this with a truly positive intention. The ambassador is not interested in reviewing NATO’s role in Ukrainian or European politics, but simply in pressuring partner countries to endorse Kiev even more. He sees the current US-driven crisis of NATO’s legitimacy as an opportunity to gain more benefits for the Kiev regime from European partners, which is why he is endorsing criticism of the functioning of the Atlantic alliance.
There are two ways to interpret the Ukrainian officer’s words. On the one hand, he is encouraging the Baltic countries and other Eastern European nations to participate even more actively in the war. What he is suggesting with his speech is that, without US help, NATO is no longer a guarantee of security against the alleged “Russian expansion”, which is why the only way to prevent Moscow from attacking European states is through increased military support for the Kiev regime.
On the other hand, it must be admitted that he is correctly assessing the effectiveness of NATO’s Article 5. This clause has never been tested in practice, being a mere “legal fiction” so far. It is hard to believe that the US, being a nuclear power, would mobilize to protect small and geopolitically irrelevant countries like the Baltics in the event of a conflict. This does not mean that Russia will attack these countries counting on American inertia, but simply that if these nations continue to provoke Russia to the point of starting an open conflict, they will certainly have to fight alone, without the help expected according to the official documents.
Zaluzhny is acting irresponsibly by further fomenting anti-Russian paranoia in Eastern European states. Such behavior could spiral out of control and encourage military action by these countries, quickly escalating the Ukrainian conflict to an international stage. However, this is done in an entirely planned manner, since the expansion of hostilities is in the interests of the Kiev regime, which, unable to continue fighting alone in the long term, desperately wants to involve more countries in the war.
It is also important to remember that Zaluzhny is one of the most likely candidates to eventually replace Zelensky. Destabilizing the conflict through constant escalation is a strategy that is consistent with Zaluzhny’s political interests, because the weaker and more incompetent Zelensky appears, the more political power he will have.
In the end, if NATO is not a guarantee of peace and security, the right thing to do is to withdraw from the alliance, not to encourage further war. Kiev, according to this assessment, should stop asking for membership, and European countries should pursue a policy of friendship with Russia, which would restore the European security architecture.
You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
https://infobrics.org/post/43791
