A "civil Marriage" With NATO

• Vladimir Fesenko
• 4.02.2026, 15:57

Rutte's visit to Kiev is both symbolic and almost simultaneous.

On February 3, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte visited Kiev. This visit, like other visits of international leaders to Kyiv, has a symbolic and practical component.

Symbolism is related to the manifestation of solidarity with Ukraine. It is, so to speak, an obligatory program, a demonstration of support for Ukraine and partnership with Ukraine - either at the interstate level or on the part of specific interstate organizations. Sometimes it is linked to a specific date. One such date is approaching - the fourth anniversary of the big war, the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. And in February we will see a number of visits to Kyiv by prominent international leaders and our partners.

Mark Rutte's visit to Kyiv, at least in formal terms, had a great symbolic significance. One of such signs was his speech in the Verkhovna Rada. As a rule, such speeches are a clear criterion of special partnership relations.

And we definitely have special partnership relations with NATO. We have long sought membership, figuratively speaking - "marriage" with NATO. But NATO wants to have close relations with us, but without legal obligations. And this is a long history.

In the context of the big war against the Russian invasion, our relations have become even closer. It is almost a "civil marriage." We far exceed most official NATO members in the scope and depth of our interactions. Except for one point - the "stamp in the passport" and NATO's obligations in the form of Article 5 of the Treaty (on NATO's joint defense of any Alliance country under attack).

And despite our frank and persistent requests, we have never been given the consent to legalize "relations" with NATO. Such a paradox.

The situation has become even more contradictory under Trump's second presidency. The relationship with NATO remains wide and deep, but at the same time it has become obvious that the prospect of Ukraine's membership is not just blocked, it must be sacrificed on the altar of peace in Ukraine. This is the position of U.S. President Donald Trump.

This is something that neither NATO nor Ukraine can accept, but neither wants to break the relationship that has developed between NATO and Ukraine. Especially since it is through NATO that Ukraine solves many issues related to arms supplies for our country.

That is the context of our relations with NATO at the moment.

I will not carefully analyze the Secretary General's speech in the Verkhovna Rada and his other statements. All this is just the external and symbolic side of this visit. The only and most quoted statement to which I will draw attention is. "As soon as a peace agreement is reached, there will be armed forces, airplanes in the air and support at sea," said the NATO secretary general, speaking in the Ukrainian parliament. Once again there are paradoxes. We are indeed promised this, but not guaranteed. And all this has not yet been legalized in the form of relevant treaties.

And the subject of these promises is not NATO, although we are talking about "armed forces", "aircraft" and "support at sea" from the Alliance countries. The subject of these promises is a coalition of the willing, which predominantly includes precisely NATO countries. I am not saying that it remains to be seen what will happen to NATO itself under a second Trump presidency. New political realities.

Nevertheless, NATO is still our partner, and Secretary General Mark Rutte has once again confirmed that he is our sincere and active friend. This is the main symbolism of his visit to Kyiv and his speech in the Verkhovna Rada. An additional and no less important symbolism is that the visit took place against the background of another air attack on Kyiv and Russia's attempts to provoke a real "cholodomor" in the Ukrainian capital.

But Mark Rutte's visit also had a significant practical component. Usually practical issues remain behind the scenes, although they may be mentioned in general terms at the briefing of the negotiators (in this case - Zelensky and Rutte himself) and at other official events.

Based on these circumstances, I will make my assumptions about the practical component of the visit.

The first practical circumstance is weapons. It is through NATO that the Ramstein platform and, especially, the PURL program, through which the purchase of American weapons for Ukraine with European money is carried out. And it is in this project that Secretary General Rutte plays an important role. According to the Office of the President, Zielenski and Rutte discussed the expansion of the PURL program and the supply of additional missiles for Patriot.

The second practical aspect is Trump and the peace talks. Mark Rutte has already established himself as the most effective European negotiator with Trump. He demonstrated this recently at Davos in negotiations with Trump on Greenland.

And he has already helped Ukraine in negotiations with Trump on a number of occasions. Now there is an urgent need for it again. We are talking about the situation with the so-called "energy truce" and the prospects for negotiations in Abu Dhabi. And the fact that Ukraine's Energy Minister Denis Shmygal showed the NATO secretary general one of Kiev's thermal power plants, which was attacked by Russia on the night of February 3, is not just part of the visit's program. It's about how Russia felt about the energy truce initiated by Trump.

Trump's reaction we already know. And it is not acceptable to us. But we also know that Trump's reaction can be influenced, in particular through Mark Rutte, whom the US president regards positively and with trust. And Mark Rutte has gotten a personal tactile sense of what is happening now in Kiev. And hopefully he will convey that to Trump as well. This is also an important way for us to influence the peace talks.

So Rutte's visit to Kiev is both symbolic and almost simultaneous. And there will be a number of more such important visits to come. February 2026 is the fourth anniversary of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. We should use the symbolism of this date for practical purposes of our resistance to the Russian invasion.

Vladimir Fesenko, nv.ua