Former Assistant Secretary General of NATO (2006-2012) Stefanie Babst has said that the Western diplomacy should clarify its own strategic objective in the context of the war unleashed by Russian against Ukraine, and if it coincides with that of Ukraine, then the latter must be invited to join NATO as soon as possible.

"Ever since the war has started, the West is not clear about it. We say 'we support Ukraine as long as it takes'. I'm sorry, this is not an objective. This is not a clear objective if your enemy thinks that he is in this conflict for the next 10-15-20 years. We need to really adopt Ukraine's objectives and say our objective is Ukraine's objective to reconquer and recapture the territories that have been occupied, we want Russia to pay for the war crimes, we want Russia to be made responsible, we want Russia to really actually […] let us alone. […] If you have defined this goal, this objective than automatically Ukraine must get into NATO as soon as possible, if you follow that logic," she said in an exclusive interview with the Interfax-Ukraine News Agency during the presentation of her book entitled "Sehenden Auges – Mut zum Strategischen Kurswechsel (With Eyes Wide Open: The Courage for a Strategic Course Change)" in which the author tells as an insider about Ukraine-related events in the Alliance.

Babst said that she wrote this book for Ukrainians, adding that she mentioned in the book that Russia's war against Ukraine requires a "Churchill moment," a strong strategic reaction from Europe.

"It's the fundamental, and that doesn't only concern Ukraine, of course Ukrainians are in the front line, in the first place but the war has something to do with us as well. So, we can't just be a bystander, we can't just stand idle, and say OK, we keen on supporting you guys, and then we wait hopefully, I mean, for you to succeed militarily. I'm convinced that we need to make this war our conflict as well. And when I say we, I'm talking obviously the Western democratic states," she said.

The former NATO senior official also said that Western democracies are "at a strategic crossroad."

When asked about a time frame for such a strategic crossroad, Babst expressed confidence that it will not take "very long."

"He [Russian President Vladimir Putin] destroys your country in front of our eyes every single day and you are losing the best and brightest every single day. The bloodshed that is ongoing in front of our eyes is absolutely amazing. So, in Vilnius people will get together, make nice family photos we know that they will do this and say, 'Oh Ukraine gets in, sorry, but not now. You know once the war is over.' This is basically a policy aimed at day X, we don't know when day X will be, we don't know when Ukrainian Armed Forces will be able to, I mean, if they ever will be able to reconquer Crimea," she said.

"What would Putin's perception be if he looks at our debate? What would be China's analysis if it looks at our debate? Is our debate ultimately really 'OK, we don't want to become party to the war, and that's why we allow the second largest country in Europe to be destroyed.' Is this our rationale? I say no, it must not be, so we must give Ukrainians a timetable to join. If I had something to say, I would say, 'Here are we in Vilnius and this is the time, the day to invite Ukraine for official accession talks'," Babst said.

At the same time, she was pessimistic while making a prognosis about the upcoming NATO Summit: "I'm afraid to say what I think is going to happen. […] But I think they will come up with this language of what I just described: you will be able to join NATO but not now, we'll give security pledges."

Babst said that Ukraine will get exactly security pledges, and not security guarantees, and these pledges will be prepared to do a long-term planning with Ukraine for rapid delivery of weapons, for military training "in close hands with the European Union."

"The European Union keeps on supporting you [Ukraine] economically and gives you the perspective at least for a long-time recovery effort. […] But this is just language, so the only real delivery, I'm afraid to say, is the Ukraine-NATO Council where you get your seat, your nameplate in alphabetical order. Sorry to be brutal. […] Ukraine will sit in this Council as a partner country. You will not even have the level of MAP country because you have not been given MAP," she said.

At the same time, the former NATO senior official described providing Ukraine with MAP as "completely useless."

"If we don't really show courage now, we implicitly accept the risk that at some point Ukrainians will simply become exhausted," she said.

According to Babst, after some time the allies will tell Ukraine that "their ammunition stocks have really come flat" and successes at the front line will be not as good as expected.

"And then Ukrainians will be forced to accept pause. There will be politically directly or indirectly nicely or less nicely be pressed into accepting ceasefire negotiations, and I would back my head the Germans and the French and, probably, a few others will be the first offering generously to host his so-called first peace conference in Berlin. Because it looks nice. And then we have a frozen conflict, and then we have people still in Mariupol and in other parts of the occupied territories who unfortunately have become subject of Russian denazification programs," she said, adding that this is a worst-case scenario.

At the same time, Babst drew attention to the developments in Poland and its ambition to participate in NATO's nuclear arrangement.

"You know that [President of Poland Andrzej] Duda has been in Washington three times […]. He wants 61 bombs in Poland. He will get F-16, F-35 so he would have the capabilities in order to become another active member of NATO's arrangement. […] I think it would send a very powerful signal to Putin if Poland becomes a host nation of nuclear capabilities. And if then Poland were to come up with a bilateral security agreement with Ukraine […]. If I were [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelenskyy and somebody tells me that I should consider the so-called Israeli option, I would say yes. […] If Ukraine is really looking for a credible deterrent, other than Article 5, the only thing, I may be wrong, I can think of is the nuclear component," she said.