In an interview with the BBC, Ivo Daalder said that in his view it was a mistake not to accept Ukraine’s accession to the alliance in 2008.

If NATO had accepted the application to join the military alliance made by then Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko in 2008, the war in Ukraine could have been prevented.

This is the assessment made by Ivo Daalder, the US ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) from May 2009 to July 2013, during Barack Obama’s US presidency.

He believes that the military alliance’s stance against the Ukraine proposal has not benefited either side and is partially responsible for the ongoing conflict that continues to kill hundreds of people.

Born in the Netherlands, Daalder is familiar with both European affairs and the issues surrounding NATO and its gradual eastward expansion – he quotes dates and talks about European agreements without hesitation.

From 1995 to 1997, during Bill Clinton’s US presidency, Daalder also served as Director of European Affairs on the US National Security Council.

Ivo Daalder has already retired from political life, without succeeding in curbing his passion for European security.

His great experience led him to chair the Chicago Global Affairs Council. think tank Based in Chicago, USA, specializing in global issues and claiming to be an independent, non-partisan organization.

In an interview with the BBC’s Spanish service, BBC News Mundo, the former American diplomat said he believes NATO expansion to include Finland and Sweden is necessary, explaining why he believes Russian President Vladimir Putin made a mistake. darling.

BBC News World – Do you think President Putin underestimated the reaction of so-called Western countries to the invasion of Ukraine?

Ivo Daalder – Vladimir Putin most likely thought that the West would react in the same way that Russia has reacted to other provocations in the past 15 years.

He tried to manipulate the (presidential) elections in Ukraine in 2004, but the Ukrainian people resisted and Putin lost this battle. It invaded Georgia in 2008, the West intervened and a ceasefire was signed but no sanctions were imposed.

It invaded Ukraine for the first time in 2014, and the West’s response has been moderate. But it was taken more seriously when Russia shot down the Malaysia Airlines plane, and even then, negotiations were chosen and Russia remained afloat.

There, too, the sanctions were moderate. Putin thought that Western countries were weakened, divided and rotten, and that there would be no reaction to this provocation.

But this time he was wrong. The reaction surprised him, which shows that he underestimated the West.

BBC – Did the West’s reaction to the Russian invasion of Ukraine also surprise you?

daalder – I was surprised at the reaction of some countries and the speed with which everything happened.

I didn’t think Switzerland would join the financial sanctions but that’s what happened. Nor that Singapore will distance itself and impose economic sanctions.

Nor did I think that Germany would get so involved and start increasing defense spending and supporting Ukraine’s war effort. However, I was not surprised to see that the West was doing great economic damage to Russia with its sanctions.

Until President Joe Biden went to war, he spent most of his time warning his European allies and the rest of the world about Russia’s plans. The Biden administration is preparing a package of sanctions that it has been implementing every day since the end of November.

Nor am I surprised that NATO has responded with such determination to protect every inch of its territory.

BBC – Do you believe that NATO has done enough to support Ukraine?

daalder – I believe war has changed people’s perception of what is enough.

The type of weapons initially sent, anti-tank missiles, air defense systems were very important. They were important to the success of the Ukrainian resistance in the north of the country and helped curb Russian advances elsewhere.

As the war changed and Ukraine showed not only determination and heroism, but also a great ability to stop Russian advances and counterattacks, the need for help grew even more.

I quote the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, whom I received, said that the aid received was exactly the right amount, but did not arrive quickly enough.

Now the war is escalating further so more help is needed. The nature of war has changed.

BBC– What do you think about the possible entry of Sweden and Finland into NATO?

daalder –I think it would be great! Of course, this is each country’s own national decision, but I’m sure all NATO members will openly welcome Finns and Swedes’ applications for membership.

They are NATO’s closest allies and have retained this status for many years. Its representatives attend all major alliance meetings with NATO members at their headquarters in Brussels.

They even attended virtual meetings at the beginning of the war and a face-to-face meeting in March. Finns, in particular, know that conditions have changed and they are in a more vulnerable position as they share a 1,340-kilometer border with Russia.

And now they are looking for the security of belonging to the alliance and Sweden is very likely to follow in their footsteps.

BBC – How does this benefit other countries?

daalder – The Finns and Swedes have significant military capabilities and have long worked with NATO forces. NATO would gain two allies that would help protect the region from other alliance members.

Of course, this means that countries that are currently part of the alliance would have to defend Finland and Sweden if they were attacked, but Finland and Sweden would also have to defend other member states if they were attacked.

Overall, this will strengthen NATO. This would likely deter any Russian aggression against NATO. As a result, Europe and the rest of the world will be safer.

BBC – Don’t you think this could cause more conflict with Russia, as the Kremlin warned?

daalder – The Kremlin may respond however it wants, but it should come as no surprise that neighboring nations want to join NATO to prevent an invasion while invading countries.

The fact is that if Russia wants to launch military action against Finland and Sweden, it will have to consider that the probability of a conflict with NATO is very high.

He hasn’t done that yet, and I have every reason to believe he won’t.

BBC – Between Sweden and Finland’s application for membership and NATO’s acceptance, there is a potentially dangerous moment. Both countries can expect some form of retaliation from Russia, which has threatened them. How should NATO handle this?

daalder – There are already ongoing discussions between Helsinki, Stockholm and NATO with the participation of the USA on what kind of measures can be taken before Finland and Sweden send a request to join the alliance and become a member.

There are two important points.

First, there is a long-standing cooperation between NATO, Finland and Sweden. There is no automatic defense commitment, but such cooperation would allow NATO to defend Finland and Sweden, even if they are not members.

Second, Finland and Sweden form the Joint Expeditionary Force, which includes NATO members such as the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. This force also has a parallel (defense) agreement.

And most importantly, they are members of the European Union.

As members of the European Union, Article 42.7 of the Lisbon Treaty. are part of the collective defense agreement. This article reveals that all member states of the European Union, even if they are not part of NATO, must assist in the defense of another member state in the event of an attack on its territory.

Referring to Germany, Finland and Sweden, these two countries had already stated that they would enforce the collective defense agreement if attacked.

Therefore, in the transition period, Russia would have to take into account that a war with Sweden or Finland would involve other countries.

BBC – In 2008, Ukraine asked NATO to initiate the process of joining the alliance. NATO countries were divided and eventually NATO promised that Ukraine would become a future member state. Was it a mistake not to accept the country back then?

daalder –It was a big mistake to come to an agreement and tell Ukraine that it would not (then) become a member of NATO, when Russia was told that they (the Ukrainians) would one day become a member.

This deal brought the worst of both worlds.

I think it would be better to start the process of including Ukraine in the alliance. If Ukraine had been a member of NATO, this war would never have happened.

Russia would not be provoked by a stronger NATO, it would be deterred.

BBC – How will this war end?

daalder –Unfortunately, I don’t think there is a diplomatic way to end this. Until that happens, there will be more wars.

It is clear that Russia is determined to occupy and control at least the entire Donbas region in order to secure a land route with Crimea.

None of these events have occurred so far. There is still a major conflict in Mariupol and a large area of ​​Donbas is still under Ukrainian control. And Ukraine is not particularly interested in stopping the war before its territory is completely free and independent.

So I don’t think there is a diplomatic way out right now. A balance of power has emerged between Russia, which is now focused on fighting in the east, and Ukraine, which can focus on fighting in the east. It all depends on a number of factors, including the assistance NATO can provide to Ukraine, such as tanks, artillery, missiles, helicopters, armed drones, and who knows, planes.

At the same time, it will depend on how the Russian army, almost defeated in Kiev and in the north, will be able to rebuild itself, and to what extent the Russian troops are willing to fight.

I don’t know what the result will be. Ukraine’s chances of achieving its military goals are lower than they were six months or six weeks ago. But we must continue to see how the war develops, because it will continue.