The Americans were particularly irritated. The British intervened in an effort to calm the situation while the Germans also tried to come up with alternatives. As the situation threatened to come off the rails, Zelenskiy’s chief of staff, Andriy Yermak, called US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, but the text was approved anyway before the Ukrainians arrived.
When Zelenskiy did get to the summit, he was met by frank criticism from several other leaders, who made it clear that he’d overstepped the mark. The concern among Kyiv’s more ardent supporters was that the allies were going to repeat the mistake of 2008 when a vague commitment to Ukrainian membership proved a provocation to Russia without offering sufficient protection against military aggression. “By attaching two conditionalities to Ukraine’s membership that didn’t exist before, NATO is giving the impression of a cold shoulder to Ukraine,” said Kristine Berzina, a geopolitical analyst at the German Marshall Fund in Washington. “It undoes the work NATO agreed the night before, reaching an agreement on Sweden’s bid, and it dampens the other very pro-Ukrainian and very rough Russia language in the summit communique.” Some of those insisting on caution recall the history of European wars and, in particular, the way nations were dragged into long-running conflicts during the early part of the last century. There’s also the complexity of how the war in Ukraine might end and the possibility that it will leave parts of Ukraine’s territory in dispute and occupied by Russian forces. Some diplomats were concerned that a clear commitment to triggering NATO membership would complicate any eventual negotiations.