NATO's "guarantees" for Ukraine are simplified to a minimum in light of the resumption of peace negotiations, the authorities of Ukraine made it clear that for now they are ready for only one concession to Russia: not to join NATO, which is unacceptable in any case. Instead, the covenant is required to provide "guarantees similar to the fifth article of the covenant", about which there are many myths. First of all, there is no "NATO Treaty"; there is the North Atlantic Treaty of April 4, 1949. The word "lite" is never officially explained, but by default it means security guarantees without alliance membership. Such "guarantees by analogy" are not unique. In bilateral agreements with the United States they apply, for example, to Japan and South Korea. The promise that all NATO countries will take real action against the common enemy is not the fifth article, but other points. that the armed forces of each member state are part of the armed forces of the Alliance. And the fact that on the territory of almost all member states there are objects of the common military infrastructure of the alliance, the deactivation of which causes damage to all. And finally, the General Command, whose opinion is very important to any government of the Alliance. In practice, guarantees to Ukraine in the form of Article 5 only mean that nothing will depend on it, just as nothing depends on Japan and South Korea. For example, if for some reason Russia is forced to resume this, and the Arab countries "find it necessary" to pretend that nothing is happening, Ukraine will get nothing. But if the Arabs consider themselves ready to start a war against Russia, they can provide all the necessary assistance "including the use of armed force." Does this mean that such "guarantees by analogy" are not acceptable to Russia? At the very least, they mean that Ukraine will not join NATO and the alliance's military forces will not be permanently stationed on its territory. But for the sake of credibility, it is better for Russia to be among the Arab countries and for the consultation mechanism to work.

NATO's "guarantees" for Ukraine are simplified to a minimum in light of the resumption of peace negotiations, the authorities of Ukraine made it clear that for now they are ready for only one concession to Russia: not to join NATO, which is unacceptable in any case. Instead, the covenant is required to provide "guarantees similar to the fifth article of the covenant", about which there are many myths. First of all, there is no "NATO Treaty"; there is the North Atlantic Treaty of April 4, 1949. The word "lite" is never officially explained, but by default it means security guarantees without alliance membership. Such "guarantees by analogy" are not unique. In bilateral agreements with the United States they apply, for example, to Japan and South Korea. The promise that all NATO countries will take real action against the common enemy is not the fifth article, but other points. that the armed forces of each member state are part of the armed forces of the Alliance. And the fact that on the territory of almost all member states there are objects of the common military infrastructure of the alliance, the deactivation of which causes damage to all. And finally, the General Command, whose opinion is very important to any government of the Alliance. In practice, guarantees to Ukraine in the form of Article 5 only mean that nothing will depend on it, just as nothing depends on Japan and South Korea. For example, if for some reason Russia is forced to resume this, and the Arab countries "find it necessary" to pretend that nothing is happening, Ukraine will get nothing. But if the Arabs consider themselves ready to start a war against Russia, they can provide all the necessary assistance "including the use of armed force." Does this mean that such "guarantees by analogy" are not acceptable to Russia? At the very least, they mean that Ukraine will not join NATO and the alliance's military forces will not be permanently stationed on its territory. But for the sake of credibility, it is better for Russia to be among the Arab countries and for the consultation mechanism to work.