NATO leaders have convened their yearly summit, and one of the agenda is about Ukraine’s potential membership. Ukraine seeks the security alliance’s assistance in countering Russian forces that have invaded its territory. However, the lack of a clear timeline for Ukraine’s membership in the Vilnius communique has disappointed President Zelenskyy and Ukrainian officials.
During the NATO summit, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy strongly criticized the lack of a specific timeline for Ukraine’s membership in the alliance, labeling it “absurd.” His remarks injected a wave of criticism into the gathering, which aimed to demonstrate unity against Russian aggression. The Ukrainian president also emphasized the unprecedented and illogical nature of the situation where neither the invitation nor the membership timeline has been established. He stressed that uncertainty undermined the strength and vowed to openly address this matter during the summit.
Zelenskyy’s remarks potentially revive tensions at the summit, despite the recent positive development of Turkey supporting Sweden’s bid to join NATO. The hope among allies is to resolve the fluctuating negotiations and depart from Vilnius with a clear plan for the alliance’s future and its support for Ukraine.
The US and Germany are still hesitant to support Ukraine’s membership
Ukraine’s NATO membership is crucial if the West wants to deter Russia and shows its support for Ukraine. It all depends on the political will of NATO leaders, as the Baltic countries, notably Lithuania, the summit host, have advocated for a robust display of support and a distinct route for Ukraine’s accession to NATO. Nevertheless, the United States and Germany have advocated a more cautious approach as President Biden remarked that Ukraine is not yet prepared to join the alliance. Why do the leaders still hesitant?
President Biden emphasized that member countries must fulfill all the requirements, including aspects related to democratization and various other issues. This acknowledgment reflects longstanding concerns about governance and corruption in Kyiv. Moreover, there are apprehensions among some that Ukraine’s inclusion in NATO could potentially provoke Russia rather than act as a deterrent against aggression. The United States and most European nations are unwilling to engage in direct confrontation with Russia that would cross a perceived “red line” between Russia and NATO. The invitation for Ukraine to join NATO is not viable until the ongoing conflict in the country is resolved.
Several problematic scenarios surround Ukraine’s potential accession to NATO. One scenario is Ukraine engaging in a prolonged fight to regain control over its entire territory before joining the alliance, which would come at great costs and could last for years. Another possibility, similar to West Germany’s situation in 1955, is Ukraine joining NATO while still divided, leaving millions of Ukrainians under occupation and perpetuating territorial partition. Some have suggested applying Ukraine-specific caveats based on the ambiguous language of Article 5, but this could undermine the deterrent power of the alliance. Military intervention by NATO to help Ukraine restore its borders is also unlikely and not a feasible option.
Given these challenging scenarios, it becomes clear why NATO allies hesitate to extend an invitation to Ukraine until the conflict is resolved and a more favorable situation arises. However, the alliance affirmed that ‘Ukraine’s future is in NATO,’ reflecting political support and ambiguity of NATO’s approach. In the communique, the NATO leaders have agreed on a package to help Ukrainian forces adopt Western standards and establish a new NATO-Ukraine Council. The communiqué highlights that allies will provide ongoing support and evaluate Ukraine’s advancements in interoperability and necessary democratic and security sector reforms. NATO leaders argue this is a good step forward for Ukraine’s future membership in NATO.
In addition, the Western leaders of the G7 have committed to creating a framework of long-term security arrangements to ensure ongoing weapons supply and economic support to Ukraine as the war continues. This joint declaration intends to ensure that Ukraine is never left vulnerable to the brutal actions inflicted by Russia. As part of these efforts, the UK has announced providing an additional 70 combat and logistics vehicles to Ukraine and thousands of ammunition for the previously donated 14 Challenger 2 tanks. Furthermore, a £50 million contract will assist in supplying spare parts, technical support, and maintenance training for the equipment already supplied.
Several NATO members, such as Germany ad France have also pledged to supply or enhance military support to Kyiv. France has sent Scalp long-range missiles to Ukraine, similar to the Storm Shadow weapons previously provided by the UK. Germany has committed to increasing its defense budget to meet the NATO target of 2% of GDP next year.
Additionally, Ukraine has reached agreements with 11 countries to facilitate the training of its pilots in flying NATO-standard F-16 fighter aircraft. This development is seen as a precursor to Ukraine eventually acquiring these warplanes, but it remains unclear whether the US will grant permission for their donation before or after the conclusion of the war. Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov confirmed the formation of a coalition for F-16 training of the Ukrainian air force.
While the path to Ukraine’s NATO membership remains complex and uncertain, NATO has expressed political support for Ukraine’s future within the alliance. The hesitancy of the United States and Germany is rooted in the need for Ukraine to fulfill requirements and concerns over provoking Russia. Nonetheless, NATO continues to support Ukraine, with ongoing evaluations of progress and commitments to assist in adopting Western standards. As Ukraine progresses in its reforms and addresses challenges, the potential for NATO membership will become clearer.
