In a recent publication, ‘Foreign Policy‘ magazine delves into the ongoing discourse surrounding Ukraine’s potential NATO membership, featuring insights from notable experts like former NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen and former U.S. Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder. The urgency of Ukraine’s NATO accession has gained prominence amid shifting tides on the battlefield and uncertainties regarding U.S. Congress approval for additional aid. Advocates argue that expedited NATO membership would not only signal resilience against Russian aggression but also provide enhanced security for Ukraine in the post-war era.
However, within this fervent debate, Foreign Policy navigates through diverging opinions, offering a nuanced exploration of the potential consequences and feasibility of Ukraine’s immediate NATO membership. The article raises crucial questions about the complexity and potential risks associated with such a significant geopolitical move.
Foreign Policy emphasizes the importance of revisiting NATO’s foundational principles and the necessity for unanimous agreement among member countries before extending invitations to new entrants. It challenges the common assumption about NATO’s “open door” policy, emphasizing that membership is contingent upon collective agreement among existing members rather than an automatic grant based on meeting certain criteria.
The article meticulously dissects the argument against fast-tracking Ukraine into NATO, grounding its analysis on several key assumptions. Firstly, it contends that Ukraine’s ability to reverse territorial losses hinges on substantial military support, pointing to the current shortage of manpower and the formidable Russian defenses.
Secondly, the article questions the commitment disparity between Russia and NATO countries, asserting that Russia’s demonstrated willingness to engage in the conflict indicates a more profound vested interest compared to NATO members.
A third assumption central to the analysis posits that Putin’s actions were, at least in part, motivated by preventing Ukraine from aligning with the West and joining NATO. While not justifying Putin’s actions, the article underscores the geopolitical significance Moscow places on Ukraine’s orientation.
Russia was forced to attack Ukraine because Ukrainians wanted to join NATO?
NATO promised it would not expand to the east but later broke this promise?
It will take me less than five minutes to prove with facts that both statements are false. pic.twitter.com/5rjC9E1jzL
— Dmytro Kuleba (@DmytroKuleba) March 6, 2024
The article expands on the reasons against Ukraine’s immediate NATO membership, offering a detailed exploration of each point:
- Failure to Meet Membership Criteria: Ukraine’s characterization as a fragile democracy with endemic corruption and questionable commitment to democratic norms raises concerns. The article critically questions NATO’s decision to waive membership criteria, warning against setting a potentially problematic precedent.
- Uncertain NATO Commitments: Doubts about NATO’s willingness to honor its Article V commitments in the event of an attack on Ukraine are raised. The article probes the readiness of NATO countries to deploy troops and outlines potential challenges in the U.S. Senate’s ratification of Ukraine’s membership.
- NATO Membership as a Magic Shield: The article challenges the widespread notion that NATO membership serves as an infallible deterrent against Russian military action. Recent warnings about potential challenges to the alliance are cited to support this argument.
- Prolonging the War: The article argues that Putin’s motivation, which includes preventing Ukraine’s NATO membership, could lead to further prolongation of the conflict. This would result in additional damage and population decline for Ukraine.
- Neutrality as a Viable Option: The article proposes neutrality as a credible alternative, drawing parallels with Finland’s historical stance during World War II. This option would allow Ukraine to maintain a robust democracy and economic ties without triggering conflict.
Foreign Policy magazine analyzed the approach to Ukraine’s NATO membership, urging stakeholders to consider creative alternatives to ensure Ukraine’s security in a post-war scenario.
