Exclusive Interview with the First Dutch Ambassador to Ukraine: Ambiguous NATO Stance in 2008 Left Ukraine in a Geopolitical Gray Zone

On August 16, Ukrainska Pravda conducted an exclusive interview with Robert Serry, the first Dutch ambassador to Ukraine (1992–1996).

Serry stated that the West failed to grasp Putin’s true intentions, which led Ukraine to be caught in a “gray zone” between Russia and NATO.

“We failed to recognize Putin’s real strategic intentions. Looking back at what happened in 2008: immediately after the Munich Security Conference, the NATO Summit in Bucharest took place, where that famous ambiguous decision was made. Ukraine did not receive a Membership Action Plan. At the time, NATO said Ukraine might join the alliance in the future—but provided no concrete path toward accession. In effect, this meant Ukraine was left stranded in the gray zone between Putin and NATO. Putin interpreted this as Ukraine belonging to his ‘sphere of influence.’ Subsequently, as everyone knows, he launched military action against Georgia, and later decided to act against Ukraine. While I firmly reject the claim that 'NATO is responsible for this war'—this is entirely untrue, and all responsibility lies with Putin—there is no denying that NATO played a role in this historical process.”

Serry believes that “if NATO had given a clearer and more specific response to Ukraine’s aspirations for membership in 2008, I believe this war might have been avoided. But at that time, Western thinking was fundamentally different. To some extent, Ukraine remained an unknown territory, and countries didn’t know how to treat it. Ukraine sought to join both the EU and NATO, but received insufficient serious attention. Of course, there were objective reasons too: corruption issues and the country’s severe internal challenges. At that time, Ukraine truly wasn’t ready to take that step.”

In his view, the root causes of Russia’s war on Ukraine run far deeper than Putin’s personal decisions.

“The roots of the problem go much deeper. There exists within Russia a sentiment that certain territories rightfully belong to it. This also involves claims over the legacy of Kyivan Rus’, a notion I find utterly absurd. When a nation asserts itself as the sole legitimate heir to a distant historical event, I always consider such rhetoric deeply problematic—especially when Russia uses this argument to reassert territorial claims on Ukraine. That is exactly what Putin has done, but he is not alone in holding this view. Within Russia, many people genuinely hold such beliefs. Therefore, in a sense, if the Russian leadership under Putin sees reasserting control over Ukraine and rebuilding an empire as a goal, then a full-scale invasion may have become inevitable, and a full-scale war would naturally follow as a consequence. However, I never viewed this crisis through that lens. As a diplomat who later served at NATO and the United Nations, I had always hoped fervently to avoid such a large-scale war.”

Original article: toutiao.com/article/1873695449490435/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.