There are several ways to ensure Ukraine’s security in the short term, many of which will be less difficult than joining NATO during hostilities, according to British military analyst Sean Bell in his analysis for Sky News.

NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg says the alliance will support Ukraine “as long as it takes,” suggesting the country is now “on par” with existing members.

However, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy hoped that this week’s NATO summit in Vilnius would lead to a definite schedule and plan for registering Ukraine’s accession to the NATO alliance.

Indeed, he called the lack of clear guidance “absurd.”

Despite all the announcements of additional aid and words of encouragement, Stoltenberg said the alliance would extend an invitation for membership “when the allies agree and when the conditions are met.”

That message was echoed by US President Joe Biden, who on Thursday sent a clear message to Ukraine, saying no country can join NATO while it is at war because it “guarantees” a third world war.

• Read also: “Vilnius has become a cold shower for the Kyiv elite” – interview with analyst Armand Goshu

Why does NATO seem so reluctant to take Ukraine under its umbrella? Could this indecision undermine Ukraine’s long-term security?

NATO is a defense alliance, and before any new country can be considered for membership, it must meet a wide range of membership criteria.

In particular, NATO is a collective alliance, not a “defense subscriber service,” says Sean Bell, and all members must be able to make a significant military contribution to the collective and demonstrate a clear capability and intent to provide military support to any member state in need.

Instead, Zelensky believes that Ukrainians are fighting “on behalf” of the West. There are lost Ukrainian lives, so if anyone should be grateful, it is the West.

And also… peace

But outside of public rhetoric, the attention of the international community is increasingly drawn to the post-war security environment in Ukraine.

If Ukraine or Russia do not “win” and achieve their strategic goals, the war will end only through a negotiated settlement.

Both sides will want to resolve their own security concerns before agreeing to begin meaningful peace talks.

After the arson in Budapest, Ukraine will demand clearer guarantees

In 1994, Ukraine agreed to give up nuclear weapons in exchange for absolute guarantees of its territorial integrity from all signatories – the Budapest Memorandum was signed by Russia, the USA, Great Britain and Ukraine, but 20 years later Vladimir Putin invaded Crimea.

As a result, Ukraine will be highly suspicious of any written statements or commitments from Russia, and will need more concrete proposals for a credible peace plan – which is why it is so actively seeking NATO membership.

However, Russia’s security concerns must also be taken seriously if peace is to be achieved, and NATO’s steady expansion over the past 30 years has undoubtedly worried a paranoid Russia.

Putin does not want Ukraine to join NATO, and if that seems a foregone conclusion, he may increase his determination to continue the war to prevent Ukraine from joining the alliance.

It would be more difficult for Putin to declare the victory of the Special Military Operation in front of his audience if the result was the presence of NATO forces on his doorstep.

Indeed, the G7’s recent announcement of a long-term security agreement with Ukraine appears to be an initiative aimed at creating options, even as Putin may seek long-term commitments from Ukraine not to join NATO until the terms are agreed.

Regardless, while Zelensky is rightly disappointed by NATO’s apparent delay, far-reaching diplomacy continues.

NATO membership offers one option for Ukraine’s long-term security after the war, but it is not the only option, and a NATO membership agreement can only prolong and even intensify the destructive war in Ukraine. (Sean Bell, Sky News)

• Follow the latest events of the war in Ukraine LIVETEXT on HotNews.ro