A recent NATO summit promised expanded membership to Ukraine, disappointing Kiev and some of its supporters who had hoped for an immediate invitation. But other European diplomats and experts described the new commitment as a hard-won victory over US reluctance.

“I think Vilnius has proven what we’ve been thinking all along, which is that even if the White House wants Sweden to join, Ukraine will be the central issue,” said one European diplomat. rice field. defense one, referring to Turkey’s softening position on Sweden’s joining the alliance. “Overall, this was close to the maximum achievable under these circumstances.”

The summit, which closed on Wednesday, produced a promise by NATO to “issue an invitation to Ukraine to join NATO if the allies agree that conditions are met.”

The wording leaves a lot of room, but Kathleen McInnis, a senior fellow at the think tank CSIS, and Luke Coffey of the Hudson Institute say “conditions” mean an end to the war in Ukraine. Agreed on the point.

The alliance also agreed to abandon Ukraine’s accession action plan, a process that typically consists of advice and technical assistance from NATO to prospective members.

This alliance established the NATO-Ukraine Council. Separately, G7 countries pledged to support Ukraine in bilateral security agreements. The G7 consists of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union.

Ukraine’s ambassador to the United States Oksana Markarovka praised the G7 announcement as a “very powerful document” in remarks Wednesday at an event hosted by the Carnegie Center for International Peace.

The summit also unveiled the latest NATO combat plan and an agreement by Turkey to allow Sweden to join NATO, a major step forward after a last-minute blockade by the Turkish government.

Two experts who attended the summit said an alliance of the Baltic, central and southeastern European countries helped the United States and others break away from their initial more conservative positions.

Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine John Herbst said, “Without strong lobbying by NATO member states, the language would have been weaker,” citing the Baltics, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. Mr. Makinis similarly referred to pressure from Central Europe and the Baltics.

Poland’s opinion was particularly important in reconstructing the US statement on Ukraine, according to people with direct knowledge of the incident. Officials said Polish pressure led to a planned revision of a US statement shortly before National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan was scheduled to give a televised address on the subject.

“We have various allies that weren’t as ambitious, or even less ambitious, and we need to make sure they’re on board too,” said a Middle Eastern European diplomat. defense one. Still, the diplomat praised the result, saying: “It was important for us to show unity, because we fear Putin.”

The United States and Germany are known to oppose more ambitious plans for Ukraine, but Makinis said other countries, especially pro-Russian Hungary, would find it difficult to get on board.

Experts also pointed to France’s recent foreign policy shift to boosting aid to Ukraine as key to the outcome of the summit. Former Ambassador Dan Freed, who served as a diplomat at the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, provided a stark contrast between the two summits when Ukraine’s membership was discussed.

“The French and Germans were at odds in Bucharest,” Fried said. “Now the French are on the move.”

On the first day of the summit, French President Emmanuel Macron announced that France would send long-range cruise missiles to Ukraine, a step the United States had yet to take despite longstanding Ukrainian requests.

“The French have become more ambitious in recent weeks, which is very positive,” said the Central and Eastern European diplomat.

At least some experts said the triumph obvious to long-time NATO observers may not be so obvious to modern observers as the 30-nation coalition remains sluggish. . Mr. McInnis praised NATO’s new regional defense plan, while Mr. Coffey agreed with the abandonment of the Accession Action Plan.

Coffey said the action was “symbolic.” “But this is important because it has long been part of the NATO debate.”

The Middle Eastern European diplomat also described the war plan as “unprecedented and indeed a very positive development from our point of view”.

McInnis, Freed and Coffey are positive about the overall outcome, especially the alliance’s intentions for Ukraine’s participation.

“It’s no longer about if, it’s about when and how. That’s the big question,” Fried said.

“We have now crossed the bridge of Ukraine joining NATO,” Coffey added.

Herbst was less optimistic, saying the NATO-Ukraine issue was a missed opportunity and was only a small step forward from the 2022 NATO summit in Madrid.

Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky initially called it “irrational” that no timetable for Ukraine’s accession was given, but was even more positive at the end of the summit.

President Volodymyr Zelensky: “Doubts and ambiguity about whether Ukraine will join NATO have been resolved” Said by video message. “For the first time, not only have all allies agreed to this, but a sizeable majority within the alliance is vigorously pushing for it.”

Patrick Tucker contributed to this report.