While Ukraine’s NATO membership would bring numerous benefits, such as enhanced security and economic ties, it also faces challenges, notably Russia’s strong opposition and conflicts such as the one happening in Eastern Ukraine.
Introduction
Ukraine’s NATO aspirations have been a subject of significant attention and debate, particularly in light of recent developments and the stance taken by the United States. Since its independence in 1991, Ukraine has sought closer integration with NATO as a means to ensure security, stability, and protection against external threats. However, the path to NATO membership is complex, requiring comprehensive reforms in Ukraine’s political, economic, and military spheres. The recent verdict by the United States reaffirmed support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, emphasizing the importance of reform efforts and progress in meeting NATO’s criteria. While Ukraine’s NATO membership would bring numerous benefits, such as enhanced security and economic ties, it also faces challenges, notably Russia’s strong opposition and conflicts such as the one happening in Eastern Ukraine.
Ukraine’s NATO Aspirations
Ukraine’s aspiration to join NATO is rooted in its desire for security, stability, and protection against external threats. Since its independence in 1991, Ukraine has pursued closer ties with the West, and NATO membership has been a long-standing goal. However, the path to NATO membership is complex, necessitating comprehensive reforms in Ukraine’s political, economic, and military spheres to align with NATO standards.
Given this, the recent verdict by the United States regarding Ukraine’s NATO membership prospects has been largely supportive. The US reaffirmed its commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, stressing the importance of Ukraine’s reform efforts and progress in meeting NATO’s membership criteria. The verdict acknowledged Ukraine’s significant contributions to NATO missions and highlighted the strategic value of Ukraine’s partnership in countering regional threats.
Apart from this, Ukraine’s NATO membership would bring several benefits. Firstly, it would enhance Ukraine’s security, providing a collective defence framework and deterrence against potential aggression. Secondly, NATO membership would bolster Ukraine’s economic ties with member states, attracting foreign investment and fostering trade.
Additionally, the membership would facilitate the modernization of Ukraine’s armed forces through cooperation, training, and access to advanced military technology. It would also foster democratic reforms and strengthen the rule of law within Ukraine, aligning it with European values.
The Security Implications of Russia’s Intervention in Ukraine
Despite the positive prospects, there are challenges and concerns surrounding Ukraine’s NATO membership. Russia vehemently opposes Ukraine’s integration into NATO and is willing to use military force to prevent it. The ongoing conflict in Eastern Ukraine, sparked by Russia’s annexation of Crimea, remains a major obstacle to Ukraine’s membership aspirations.
Russia views Ukraine’s NATO membership as a direct threat to its security and sphere of influence. The potential deployment of NATO forces near Russia’s borders raises concerns about encirclement and diminished strategic leverage. Moreover, NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe challenges Russia’s efforts to assert dominance in the region. Russia aims to maintain its influence over Ukraine by preventing Ukraine’s integration into NATO and protecting its interests.
Russia’s intervention in Ukraine began in 2014 with the illegal annexation of Crimea. This act violated international law and sparked the ongoing conflict in Eastern Ukraine. Russia’s aggression has fueled separatist movements in Ukraine’s eastern regions, destabilizing the country and impeding its path to NATO membership. The conflict has claimed thousands of lives and displaced many Ukrainians.
Russia has employed hybrid warfare tactics in its efforts to undermine Ukraine’s NATO aspirations. This includes disinformation campaigns, cyber-attacks, economic pressure, and support for separatist groups. These actions aim to weaken Ukraine’s stability, sow internal divisions, and create doubts about Ukraine’s commitment to NATO membership among member states.
NATO’s Strategy in the Ukraine Crisis: Deterrence, Defense, or Escalation?
NATO has condemned Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and expressed solidarity with Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. However, NATO faces a dilemma in responding to Ukraine’s NATO membership bid. While there is support for Ukraine’s aspirations, member states are cautious about provoking further tensions with Russia and the potential risks of admitting a country engaged in an active conflict.
NATO- formation, purpose, and evolving challenges
As II World War ended and the relationship between the Soviet Union and the allied powers deteriorated the United States, the UK, Canada, and 10 other European Powers organized themselves for a new geopolitical reality. In 1949 they created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), an alliance created to present an integrated and democratic Europe, especially in the backdrop of fascist and totalitarian governments that formed in Europe in the wake of the II World War and targeted, especially the Soviet Union.
It is a common practice in International Relations for an alliance group of countries to come together and promote their common security Interests. As in many of the cases the alliances formed by countries even promote military support if an alliance partner is threatened as a formal commitment known as mutual security.
The core of NATO’s strength is known to arise from Article 5 of its founding treaty wherein there is a common commitment that an attack on one of the member countries will be essentially deemed as an attack on the entire alliance hence threatening the enemy or the aggressor with brutal consequences.
While countries are known to benefit from alliances, smaller or weaker countries are often known to join an alliance when they feel threatened, and lack resources, to mount a defense thus keeping forth the enduring fact that joining an alliance is the only realistic path to maintaining deterrence and deterring potential foes.
For several decades NATO had been enduring the threat of a familiar foe, a hated ideology that it was organized against – The Soviet Union, which later disappeared essentially deterring the path and the purpose for which NATO was essentially formulated. The renewed threat by the recent Russia-Ukraine war seemingly has challenged the augmented goal and the purpose of NATO as an alliance group and created a renewed Security Threat to Europe.
The alarming expansionism of the Soviet Union post the II world war and the failure to comply with the terms of the West in the Potsdam and the Yalta Conference alarmed the West compelling them to think of a counterproductive solution in countering the Soviet Union and the Spread Of communism, resulting in the birth of NATO.
Despite the egalitarian structure and the leading of the United States in the alliance the purpose has been simplified and clear from the very beginning, a supreme allied commander (SACEUR) a position that the US has usually held leading NATO operations.
NATO’s expansion especially by offering membership to Greece and Turkey and consequently West Germany essentially contributed to the conflict in Europe as with its entry and unification, Germany became the Hub of the production of weapons of mass destruction
NATO was an essential tool in helping the US deploy thousands of missiles close to the borders of the Warsaw Pact countries, including the Soviet Union at the same time it leveraged the presence of these warheads to dismantle the short and intermediate-range missiles with the Soviet Union
The democratic political reforms that were initiated with a democratic momentum led to the dismantling and the breakup of the Soviet Union. While NATO might have achieved success in its mission of deterring an armed conflict and keeping the cold war mostly cold.
Ukraine’s NATO Aspirations: Tracing the Path to Membership
The relationship between Ukraine and NATO dates back to the period of the breakup of the Soviet Union dating back to the period as early as the 1990s and has since developed into one of the most complex relationships.
A stable Ukraine is essentially vital for stability in the Euro- Atlantic area. As the relationship between Ukraine and NATO are essentially important since the wake of the 2014 Russian Annexation of Crimea which is now a part of Russia cooperation has been deemed critical and cooperation has intensified in critical areas, even NATO countries providing un- intensified support since the Russian Invasion of Ukraine.
The dialogue with Ukraine and most countries that liberated itself from the Soviet Union began post 1991 especially when Ukraine joined the North Atlantic Treaty Council and the partnership for peace program in 1994. While the relations strengthened with the signing of the 1997 charter on the distinctive partnership which established the NATO- Ukraine Commission (NUC) urging to take the cooperation forward. Over some time, the collaboration and the cooperation strengthened with Ukraine being mutually beneficiary of the NATO-led operations and missions.
Ukraine first expressed its interest in joining NATO in 2002 as said by Pifer – The US Ambassador to Ukraine from 1998 – 2000, while Ukrainian interest in joining NATO become more serious under Victor Yushchenko, and it was angling to receive a Membership Action Plan as they appointed the Russian Friendly Yanukovych as the prime minister.
MAP essentially sets aspiring NATO nations to track their NATO membership to potentially join the alliance and provide them with both technical and political advice to also help in for future membership, effectively opening the door to countries looking to a part of the alliance.
While Yushchenko appealed again to NATO member countries with the support of the new prime Minister to accept the Ukrainian Appeal, since all NATO decisions are made by consensus rather than an appeal or even voting at NATO Bucharest Summit NATO was unable to reach a consensus, the member countries nearly bordered the decision to admit Ukraine.
The Bucharest Summit declaration went by the following words “NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s aspirations for membership in NATO and agreed that these countries will become NATO Members.
In the US while the Republican administration under George W Bush rallied to give Ukraine a Membership Action Plan it ultimately failed to persuade all the other allied leaders. Ivo Daadler later went on to describe the movement as “A Compromise that satisfied No one.”, as the membership action plan is necessary to aspire a nation for membership nothing much changed before the Russian Invasion.
NATO’s Open Door Policy: Limited Progress and Persistent Challenges
Two years down the lane starting in 2010 Ukraine adopted the Non-aligned status that was essentially codified with the Law with Yanukovych as President meaning it could not join a military alliance. However, after the Maidan Revolution in 2014 that ousted Yanukovych as the president due to his proximity with Russia, Russia scaled up its attacks leading to the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula, essentially forcing Ukraine to scrap its non-aligned status.
Ukraine has since amended even its constitution in its desire to join NATO and it continued its efforts to receive a membership action plan from NATO under the president Petro Poroshenko who held the office from 2014 – 2019. But neither Petro Poroshenko nor his successor Zelensky could keep the dice rolling.
While NATO says it keeps its doors open and that under the threat of Russia or any other NATO doesn’t shut its doors to new and aspiring members. While it is tough to reach a consensus among NATO in itself Many NATO members believe that admitting Ukraine could result in directly entering into a war with Russia especially when countries like Germany and many others are dependent on Russia for energy threatening their mode of survival.
It is seemingly a fact that Ukraine serves to be a proxy between the West and Russia essentially endangering their survival. The sale of weapons, and military equipment all have one point to prove the war in Ukraine from being a battle for the survival of a nation has turned to a tool for what the future holds for both the West and Russia, there should be no denying that the Ukraine and its NATO dream will only continue to be a cosmic never achievable dream for Ukraine with the proximity of western interests being Served at the behest of the conflict.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO have been long-standing, rooted in the country’s desire for security, stability, and protection against external threats. While there is significant support for Ukraine’s NATO membership, the path forward is complex and challenging. Ukraine has made efforts to align itself with NATO standards through political, economic, and military reforms. The recent verdict by the United States regarding Ukraine’s membership prospects has been largely positive, emphasizing the importance of Ukraine’s progress and reforms.
However, there are obstacles to overcome, including Russia’s strong opposition to Ukraine’s integration into NATO. The ongoing conflict in Eastern Ukraine, sparked by Russia’s annexation of Crimea, remains a major hurdle. Russia’s hybrid warfare tactics and influence in the region pose significant challenges to Ukraine’s NATO aspirations. NATO faces a delicate balance in responding to Ukraine’s bid, considering the potential risks and tensions with Russia. Despite the obstacles, Ukraine’s NATO membership would bring numerous benefits, including enhanced security, economic ties, modernization of armed forces, and democratic reforms. The future of Ukraine’s NATO aspirations remains complex and intertwined with regional dynamics and geopolitical considerations.
(Harshita is pursuing a post-graduation in International Relations. She has an undergraduate degree in Global Affairs with a specialization in social sciences and humanities. She is a certified French speaker. Ashish is pursuing a post-graduation in International Relations. His areas of interest include defence, strategic cooperation, International affairs, Intelligence – Counter intelligence & Analytical Investigation. Opinions expressed are the author’s own)
References:
- Jim Garamone, “Leaders Agree to Expedite Ukraine’s NATO Membership” (U.S. Department of Defense
- Zachary B. Wolf, “It’s not so easy for Biden to evolve on Ukraine joining NATO” (CNN)
- Alec Greaney, “Ukraine Wanted to Join NATO’s Alliance for Years. What Stopped It?” (5CHICAGO
- A Martínez, Greg Myre, “Ukraine joining NATO came up in 2008. 15 years later it’s still under discussion” (NPR)
- Ask PolitiFact: What’s Ukraine’s history of trying to join NATO? (POLITIFACT)
- Stephen Collinson, “Why Ukraine’s plea for NATO membership is such a profound dilemma for the West” (CNN)
- Why NATO Has Become a Flash Point With Russia in Ukraine (Council on Foreign Relations)
Balaji Subramanian 
Dhruv Ashok 
Aayush Pal