NATO Made a Mistake by Promising Membership to Ukraine
Ukraine has waited for an invite to NATO for years. Lengthy earlier than 2022’s Russian invasion, and even earlier than Moscow claimed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in 2014, Kyiv has sought to hitch the West’s premier army alliance. And NATO, for its half, has sought to welcome Ukraine into its ranks—ultimately.
In 2008, at a gathering in Bucharest, the alliance promised Ukraine may sometime change into a NATO member. “NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO,” stated a press release from NATO leaders. “We agreed in the present day that these international locations will change into members of NATO,” and “we clarify that we assist these international locations’ purposes” for the membership course of.
This week, as alliance leaders assemble as soon as extra, Ukrainian accession to NATO has but to be realized. And after a yr and a half of conflict on Ukrainian soil, the query of bringing Kyiv into the NATO fold is extra urgent than ever: Ought to NATO make good on its promise? Ought to Ukraine change into a proper NATO ally as a substitute of a novel recipient of members’ largesse?
For any who deplore Moscow’s aggression and cruelty towards Ukraine, it could appear self-evident that our reply must be “sure.” In spite of everything, many NATO allies—the US chief amongst them—are already sending substantial army and monetary assist to Kyiv to bolster its protection. Certainly, American involvement is critical sufficient that we’re already risking battle with Russia. Why not make it official?
Furthermore, Ukraine’s efficiency in battle has been exceptional. The place Russian forces had been broadly anticipated to brush by way of the nation and quickly substitute Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy with a pro-Moscow puppet, Ukrainian troops have put up a staunch struggle, stopping and even, in some locations, reversing Russian positive aspects.
So maybe, as former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko wrote in Newsweek this week, “it’s greater than apparent that Ukraine’s accession to NATO is critical” for Ukraine and the allies alike. “A robust and battle-hardened Ukraine, with armed forces that totally meet the necessities of NATO membership, will probably be a robust asset to the alliance and supply a assure of efficient protection in opposition to any future Russian aggression.”
That is a lovely narrative—Ukraine as an avatar of each would possibly and proper whose NATO membership could be helpful for all concerned. However the actuality, sadly, is extra difficult. Admitting Ukraine to NATO dangers not simply the safety of extant alliance members however the prolongation of this very conflict.
Certainly, the place wherein NATO’s 2008 promise has put Ukraine these final 15 years is arguably the worst-case situation, bestowing all of the hazard that comes from stoking Russian fears of NATO enlargement and none of the benefits of the alliance. It is a promise that ought to by no means have been made and which, if now fulfilled, is unlikely to work in Ukrainians’ favor—or ours.
The chance to Ukraine is well summarized: An alliance membership hoped to shorten the present conflict will as a substitute lengthen it by exacerbating Russian fears—whether or not justified or not—of Western assault.
“Main powers by no means calmly settle for the shut method to their borders of unfriendly powers or alliances,” as MIT political scientist Stephen Van Evera wrote in an explainer for Protection Priorities (a suppose tank the place I’m a fellow) shortly earlier than the 2022 invasion. On this, “Russia isn’t any exception,” he continued. “It is not going to settle for a settlement that leaves open the potential of Ukraine in NATO or NATO in Ukraine.”
As Van Evera went on to element, neutrality agreements have labored prior to now to forestall and settle conflicts just like the one in Ukraine in the present day. States react “with particular belligerence to threats that seem close to their borders,” he wrote. “Maybe such habits is outdated: Within the missile and cyber ages states can inflict nice hurt from nice distance, so strategic depth issues a lot much less.” However, rational or not, that is nonetheless how states behave.
It is why NATO welcoming Ukraine would seemingly inspire Russian President Vladimir Putin to redouble his conflict effort fairly than finish it. The NATO-Russia border has already lengthened by greater than 800 miles this yr because of Finland’s accession. Putin is not going to merely settle for the addition of one other 1,400 miles to that span. The notion that Ukrainian accession to NATO may cow Moscow into retreat is, sadly, a fantasy.
Then there’s the danger for the U.S. and different NATO allies. Their reluctance to maneuver ahead within the membership course of is “deep and comprehensible,” as erstwhile neocon Max Boot wrote in The Washington Put up, due to the essential incontrovertible fact that Ukraine “is at conflict with Russia and will probably be for the foreseeable future. This is not a steady stalemate just like the division of East and West Germany or North and South Korea. It is a dynamic, ongoing battle that, if NATO had been to absorb Ukraine, may draw different members right into a taking pictures conflict with a nuclear-armed Russia.”
Such warnings of superpower battle, and perhaps even nuclear conflict, have change into commonplace within the final 18 months. That familiarity mustn’t boring us to their knowledge. The prospect of open U.S.-Russia battle actually would improve if Ukraine had been admitted to NATO, and the prospect of such a conflict actually is horrible to behold.
Troublingly, the NATO leaders now gathering in Lithuania appear unwilling to revoke the 2008 pledge—nor to tear off the Band-Help and convey Ukraine into NATO now, ending at the very least the uncertainty of the present scenario. As a substitute, their draft assertion on the topic, as reported by Monetary Occasions, merely renews the 2008 doc’s delayed welcome: Ukraine can be part of—ultimately.
The choice naturally angered Zelenskyy, who desires NATO admission as quickly as potential. And that is a frustration these on the opposite aspect of the problem can share. NATO by no means ought to have promised membership to Ukraine. Repeating the promise is repeating the error.
