Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder, who currently CEO of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, says in the event of Ukraine's membership in NATO with temporarily occupied territories, Article 5 would be only to those territories that are being administered by the Ukrainian government, which will prevent further Russian aggression.

He expressed this opinion in an exclusive interview with Interfax-Ukraine, answering the question whether Ukraine, having become a member of NATO, will be able to activate Article 5 to liberate the territories occupied by Russia.

The former ambassador elaborated on the principles of Article 5 on the principles of collective defense, according to which an attack on one of the NATO members will be considered as an attack on all NATO members. "Article 5 is a political commitment. The commitment to apply Article 5 would be only to those territories that are being administered by the Ukrainian government. But how it gets implemented is on a case-by-case basis. Also, Article 5 is not automatic, it requires an armed attack on the territory that is being defended and a consensus decision of all members of NATO to invoke. Like it was on September 12, 2001, the only time in the history of the alliance that Article 5 was invoked. That was a vote. It required everyone to agree or at least no one to disagree. There was a footnote to the decision that explicitly said that the United States would provide NATO allies within three weeks of proof that the attack of 9/11 originated outside the country. If it had indeed originated inside the country it would not have been an armed attack and therefore article five would have been not involved. So if Ukraine provokes a Russian counter-response because it is trying to liberate territory, then NATO countries have the right to say we are not going to invoke Article 5. And that's in fact, to be honest, one of the reasons why countries might be willing to provide NATO membership to Ukraine because the provocation has to come from Moscow, not from Kyiv," he said.

Daalder answered in the affirmative to the question that in this way the possible future membership of Ukraine in the alliance would prevent a further escalation of the war. "Correct. It's just the basis however for a political basis for getting back all of Ukrainian territory. All in NATO, and everyone else supporting the sovereignty and independence of all Ukrainian territory. The question is how do you get it back," the source said.

The former ambassador is also convinced that even before the start of Russia's full-scale invasion into Ukraine, there was no talk of the military liberation of Crimea. "It was a political goal, not a military goal. Of course, the Russian full-scale invasion changed psychology and everything else. Of course, if NATO membership had been granted to Ukraine before the attack, the attack would have never happened. All of that's the case, but we are where we are, and we are middle of a war, and the question of how you extend security guarantees to a country in the middle of a war in the contested borders is the core problem that NATO has been trying to fix. I will be very blunt: none of the advocates who want to move forward with NATO invitation today have an answer for this question. I actually would argue that I'm closer to the answer than anyone else," Daalder said.

He also criticized the Memorandum of Understanding that the United States committed to sign with Ukraine as part of the G7 declaration. "I think to be frank Mr Yermak and Mr Rasmussen [Anders Fog Rasmussen, former NATO Secretary General] have not helped clarity by defining that as a security guarantee. Security guarantee in my view is a commitment to come to the aid of the defence of a country that is being attacked, actively in defence. That's not what the MOU is about," the former ambassador said.

Answering a question about the possibility of inviting Ukraine to NATO membership at the alliance's summit, which will be held in Washington in July 2024, Dallder said: " there are two things. There's this question of 'when and how' [invite Ukraine to membership] and what is happening on the ground militarily. I think there's a larger chance that between now and Washington, a year from now, the fighting will have evolved in a way that makes a decision more likely on an invitation. But there's a second issue, the word 'condition' (the declaration of the NATO summit in Vilnius states that Ukraine will be invited to join NATO 'when the allies agree and the conditions are met'). The word 'conditions' is there for a reason, and the reason has to do with the government's ability and willingness to fight corruption, which is widespread and a growing concern among Ukraine's closest friends. The government is trying to deal with this, and this needs to be addressed," he said.

Daalder was also critical of the still-existing opinion in the West to provide an opportunity to "save Putin's face." "The war has been a strategic disaster for him and for Russia in every way possible and nothing that can come about is going to change that. There is no interest and there should be no interest in Russia saving face. It needs to pay for what it has done. I believe that Ukrainian membership in NATO and in the European Union is probably the biggest price he would pay," the former ambassador said.

However, the agency's interlocutor said the issue is not "to help Russia save a face, the issue is how do you help Ukraine decide its future." "I think the future lies in the West, I think that's what Ukraine wants and I think we need to use that prospect as a means to defeat Russia. It doesn't mean every inch of territory will be regained because unless somebody tells me how you do that militarily, and I haven't found anybody. It's not about providing more F-16 or ATACMS. The reality is it's really hard to get territory when you're a smaller military power. I know how to get back, which is for the United States to be part of the war but we're not going to be part, Poland will not be part of the war, and Lithuania will be not part of this war. So that's why I think we need to talk about it. That's the discussion that the Ukrainian people will have to have with themselves not to save face for Putin, but to ensure their future within the West," Daalder said.