Read the original text on Facebook.
President's unexpected activation of the issue of Ukraine's accession to NATO, of course, pursues purely domestic goals and is connected with possible early parliamentary elections of this fall. There is no real foreign policy under this. These are just political games.
Ukraine's first attempt to apply for NATO membership in 2008 was not successful, because Germany and France opposed. And now there are no chances even theoretical ones, given the military conflict in Donbas and the territorial dispute with Russia on Crimea.
But there is one more, no less serious obstacle. Currently NATO itself is in an uncertain state, infected with disorder and vacillation. The crux of the problem lies in the fact that NATO currently does not have a mission that would be shared by all the parties of the North Atlantic Treaty. Initially, NATO was created to balance the USSR and its satellites. However, this task was completely fulfilled in 1991, when the USSR collapsed, and the Warsaw Treaty ceased to exist. In theory, at this point, NATO also had to be dissolved.
However, NATO, like any other huge international influential, bureaucratic organizations, which has once emerged, already continues to live its own life, regardless of its owners. And if the original goal, for which the structure was created, is achieved, it sets some new goals for itself. Inside and around NATO, huge amounts of money revolve, and the powerful interests of thousands of people with financial, power and influence are involved. Such structures cannot simply be abolished by simple termination of the Treaty. Simply, no one will give it, no one will be able to overcome resistance. When Trump tried to question the feasibility of the NATO bloc, he encountered a deep resentment of his generals and quickly realized that he could run for impeachment or even share the fate of John F. Kennedy. Such international structures might collapse at the system level only, as the Warsaw Pact has collapsed.
After the collapse of the Soviet bloc, NATO began artificially inventing new tasks: combating international terrorism, Iran's nuclear program, deterring China, dictatorial regimes, fighting for the rights of oppressed peoples and other military-humanitarian tasks. Everyone was pleased with himself and enjoyed the victory in the Cold War exactly until the Middle East conflict erupted. It has also led to serious disagreements between NATO members.
Of course, the US as a global hegemon could not stand aside from the revolutionary events in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Iran, Syria, etc. Moreover, the United States has set itself the goal of ensuring the transformation of the entire Middle East in a favorable direction for itself. And this means participating in numerous wars that have begun and will continue in this region for several decades, until it stabilizes. The Americans, of course, invited all NATO members to follow them in their crusade to the Middle East.
And then it turned out that most of the members of the Alliance are not eager to send their citizens to the Middle East and simply do not see the point in it. There was a painful silence... And it soon became clear that many participants in the military alliance are looking at the current goals and tasks of NATO in different ways. This partly explains that many European countries have not paid mandatory 2% of their GDP for NATO maintenance for a long time. They do not share its current actions and want a clear definition of its new mission.
The US sees the entire globe as a zone of its interests and demands that the rest of NATO members pay them for this global mission. However, many countries already understand that such a statement of the issue can drag them into American adventures all over the world, even to China or Iran. And this is a stone's throw to the nuclear war.
NATO is in deep crisis, and it seems that either it should soon begin to disintegrate, or substantially reconsider its mission, or it would be replaced by a purely European defense alliance led by Germany.