NATO talks Ukraine
Two years after Russia’s full-scale invasion began, Ukrainians are not just fighting for their immediate survival; they are also struggling to establish their long-term security. The West needs to fulfill its commitments to Ukraine on both fronts.
At the recent Munich Security Conference, the primary focus of U.S. and European officials’ public remarks was whether Western countries will provide Ukraine with urgently needed weapons and aid. But in the hallways and beer halls of the Hotel Bayerischer Hof, Ukrainians I spoke with were seized with concern over a longer-term issue: whether, and when, the West will honor its promises to welcome Ukraine into NATO. They aren’t getting clear answers.
“We are confronted with a nuclear power. Either we will become a member of NATO, allied with a nuclear power, or we should restore our nuclear status,” Ukrainian lawmaker Oleksiy Goncharenko said. “I don’t see any other option. What option would you prefer?”
Ukraine gave up its nukes in exchange for promises of security, via the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, but Russia invaded anyway. Now, Ukrainians are skeptical of Western security assurances that fall short of NATO membership. And they are frustrated with NATO’s mixed messages. At the 2022 Munich conference, just days before the full-scale invasion, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky pleaded with U.S. and European officials to level with him. “Be honest. Open doors are good, but we need open answers, not open questions for years,” he said.
At the 2023 NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, the Biden administration refused to support a NATO invitation but negotiated a statement that affirmed the allies’ commitment that “Ukraine will become a member of NATO” at some unspecified future date. Zelensky tweeted that NATO’s refusal to issue a formal invitation was “absurd,” exposing a rift between Kyiv and Washington.
This year, all eyes are on the NATO summit that Biden will host in Washington this July. Ukraine’s status will be at the top of the agenda. But U.S. officials are already throwing cold water on the idea that Ukraine could receive a formal invitation at the summit. Inside the administration, officials are debating what — short of that — can be done to reassure Ukraine “not now” does not mean “never.”
For Ukrainians, that membership is not only about physical security; it speaks to Ukraine’s ability to determine its own future. The goal of NATO accession is enshrined in Ukraine’s constitution, so giving up on it because of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s objections would undermine Ukraine’s basic independence.
“It was a request from the Russian side that we should reject any aspiration to be a member of NATO. And this is an intervention in our internal policy,” Yehor Cherniev, chairman of the Ukrainian delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, told me in an interview. “If we agree with this, it will mean that we will lose our sovereignty.”
Ukraine doesn’t expect to join NATO now, but Cherniev said it can’t afford to wait until the war ends to plan its future security architecture. “It’s a signal, like a reservation for a seat at the table,” he said.
Critics argue that issuing Ukraine a formal invitation would provoke an escalation with Putin or complicate any negotiated settlement to end the war. But that’s backward because Putin has been escalating his aggression for years despite NATO’s caution, former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told me.
“That’s an extremely dangerous argument because it de facto provides Putin with a veto because it gives him an incentive to continue hostilities — to prevent Ukraine joining NATO,” Rasmussen said.
Regardless, the Biden administration is signaling that a formal invitation this summer is not in the offing. Former U.S. ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder told me a formal invitation is less important than coming up with concrete ways to help Ukraine cooperate and integrate with NATO.
“What practically can we do to bring Ukraine closer to NATO now, so when you do move forward with accession, you can then go quickly? That’s where the discussion is going,” he said. “We need a political strategy for Ukraine beyond the strategy for war.”
Daalder and former State Department official Karen Donfried are working together on several ideas they discussed with U.S. and European officials in Munich. NATO could establish a process to more clearly define what Ukraine needs to do to get to the invitation stage. Work could be done to clarify how Russian-occupied parts of Ukraine would be treated when Ukraine joins, to avoid triggering a NATO-Russia outright conflict.
NATO could also take over the U.S.-led multilateral effort to arm and train Ukrainian forces. The Biden team should also finalize its long-pending 10-year memorandum of understanding to establish long-term U.S. support for Ukraine’s security, modeled after a U.S.-Israel agreement signed by President Barack Obama. It’s too risky to put off these issues until after the U.S. presidential election, given that former president Donald Trump’s return to office could mean the United States pulls away from Ukraine or NATO or both.
Ultimately, this is about whether Ukraine’s future will be decided in Kyiv or Moscow. Ukraine wants to be part of the West, and the West needs Ukraine as a partner and a bulwark against Russian aggression. Putin may not like it. But he doesn’t control Ukraine — and NATO can ensure he never will.