OPINION: Last Week in Ukraine: NATO Meeting in Bucharest, Sanctions Against “Church” and Macron the Mediator

• At a ministerial meeting of NATO member countries in Bucharest, an open statement on the supply of energy equipment, new air defense systems and weapons to Ukraine, gave grounds for cautious optimism around the increasing pace and volume of aid;

• The National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine adopted a long-awaited decision to apply sanctions against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (UPC MP), which is governed from the territory of the aggressor state and carries out hostile propaganda against our country.

• French President Emmanuel Macron appears to be trying to mediate peace talks between Russia, the S. and Ukraine.

Read on to find out more in the traditional weekly review from Information Defense experts.

NATO will support Ukraine for as long as necessary

NATO’s long-term commitment to Ukraine is set out in the statement of foreign ministers party to the Alliance, who held a meeting in Bucharest on Nov. 29-30.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, Dmytro Kuleba, admitted that, if earlier he appealed to Western partners with a call for “weapons, weapons and more weapons,” today his call sounded more like “faster, faster and faster.”

The results of the ministerial meeting gave grounds for cautious optimism regarding the increase in the volume and pace of aid to Ukraine.

Why optimism and why caution?

At first glance, the results of the meeting don’t look too bad – arguably even satisfactory.

NATO has once again confirmed that its doors are open to Ukraine, no matter how trite it sounds now. But for the first time, the process of our country joining this military-political bloc (and this is quite logical) was clearly connected with the results of Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Essentially, Ukraine wins and it can look to become a member of the Alliance. Any other entry option is not under consideration.

NATO is ready to do everything to prevent Russia from winning. This is where the nuances and grimaces of our partners’ foreign policies begin: why not say instead that they will do everything possible for the victory of Ukraine?

NATO will also provide additional humanitarian and technical assistance to Ukraine, in particular through the supply of medicine, fuel and energy equipment, primarily generators and transformers.

Russia has driven itself into a dead end by launching massive missile strikes on our country’s energy infrastructure. Western society perceives this as Russia’s military helplessness on the battlefield, for which it is trying to compensate by launching strikes on peaceful cities, terrorizing Ukrainians with cold and darkness, and trying to force Ukraine to the negotiating table.

Optimism is generated by NATO’s promise to continue military-technical assistance to Kyiv. Firstly, this includes the supply of air defense systems, primarily HAWK and NASAMS, which are already arriving in our country. For the production of the latter, the Pentagon concluded an agreement with Raytheon Technologies for $1.2 billion for the production of six anti-aircraft missile systems for Ukraine by 2025.

However, it seems that discussions regarding the delivery of Patriot systems have not gone in our favor and have stalled.

We have already encountered such obstacles many times. After previously denying certain types of weapons being supplied to Ukraine, our Western partners are gradually becoming more open-minded.

Well, then – we eagerly await the real supply of weapons to our country. And after some time, I am convinced that Patriot systems will protect Ukraine’s air borders.

Army, language, faith

Along with receiving the Tomos on autocephaly, Ukraine took another decisive step towards its spiritual independence last week.

A cell of a pseudo-religious organization, which is managed and directed by the Kremlin and the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) and carries out subversive activities against Ukrainian statehood and national identity, can no longer operate on the territory of our country.

On Dec. 1, the National Security Council finally adopted a long-awaited decision announcing sanctions against the pseudo-religious organization the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP), banning its activities. In the future we can expect the adoption of a similar decision by parliament. Sanctions were also imposed against certain clergymen of the UOC-MP.

The UOC-MP is not a religious structure, but a subversive cell of the agency of the aggressor country on our territory. On conducting searches of the territory of its monasteries, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) discovered propaganda materials attempting to justify Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and promoting the concept of “Russian peace.”

Without a doubt, it is time to transfer the real national Church, the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, to the shrine of the Ukrainian people – the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra.

Macron mediates between Russia, Ukraine, and the U.S.

At the beginning of his term, the newly elected President of Kazakhstan, Qasym-Jomart Kemelūly Toqaev, made two foreign visits. The first, rather as a tribute to the post-Soviet tradition, was to Moscow. And the second one, immediately to France.

According to our sources, Toqaev, while in Moscow, received certain signals from Russian President Vladimir Putin about conditions acceptable to Russia for at least a “temporary settlement of the war in Ukraine.” According to the agreement, the Kazakh president was to broadcast these signals to the collective West during his visit to France. This assumption is supported by the fact that the French visit of Toqaev was extended over two days.

Immediately afterwards, Macron flew to the U.S., where on Dec. 1 he held a meeting with President Joe Biden. This visit had been planned in advance. It is noteworthy that Macron said that immediately after his conversation with Joe Biden, he would urgently contact Putin.

The fact that on Nov. 29, the ships and aircraft of the armed forces of the aggressor took up combat positions to launch a missile attack on the territory of Ukraine attracts attention. However, these strikes were not carried out.

Why?

It can be assumed that this was preemptive muscle flexing planned by the Russian authorities. And the refusal to strike will be privately “sold” to the leaders of Western countries as another “gesture of goodwill” on the eve of possible negotiations.

A preliminary assessment of the negotiating position of the U.S. is unlikely to satisfy the Russian dictator. Biden declared his readiness to negotiate with Putin if Moscow shows readiness to end the war in Ukraine and withdraw Russian troops from its territory.

Macron recently made it clear that a “good peace” is not a peace that is accepted by and satisfies only one of the parties, and in an interview with newspaper Le Parisien, he promised to continue military support for Ukraine to strengthen Kyiv’s position in negotiations with Russia.

At the same time, he spoke very cautiously about Ukrainian prospects for victory in this war and believes that the West should consider how to satisfy Russia’s need for security guarantees if Putin agrees to negotiate an end to the war. Of course, this is completely unacceptable to Ukraine.

It should be noted that there are no hints in the public space about the readiness of Western allies for any secret negotiations. On the contrary, Emmanuel Macron is already publicly claiming the role of mediator between interested parties: Russia, Ukraine and the U.S.

Well, he’s not the first, and he probably won’t be the last. The key thing is that the main rule was clear in all of these negotiations – no talks about Ukraine without Ukraine.

Ihor Zhdanov is a co-founder of the Open Policy Foundation, a National Government Organization (NGO) in Ukraine.

The views expressed are the author’s and not necessarily of Kyiv Post.