Should Ukraine be admitted to NATO?

As NATO prepares for a much-anticipated summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, one all-important question looms large: Should the besieged Ukraine be welcomed in to its ranks? For years, Kyiv has begged NATO's member nations for admission, especially as neighboring Moscow invaded and tore up nearby regions like Georgia and Crimea. But now, in the wake of Russian President Vladimir Putin's unjust invasion of Ukraine that began on February 2022, unilateral NATO protection is looking all the more valuable, and timely, to a nation unfamiliar with Kremlin aggression.

That said, whether or not to admit its Ukrainian counterparts has proven a much more difficult question for NATO to answer, even if Kyiv is assuaged now with a concrete road map for accession down the line. Before extending an invite, whether formal or implied, diplomats must first consider the issue of Article 5, which ensures that an attack on one alliance member is considered an attack on all, as well as not-unfounded fears of another world war and the enduring geopolitical and societal ramifications of angering Putin. On the other hand, however, NATO must weigh the moral and ethical dilemma of leaving unjust aggression unchecked and the kind of message it sends when the good guys fail to stand up to the bad.

Holding off

A promise to admit Ukraine would "scratch the itch of teaching Russia a lesson," but it would "do nothing to end the war or shorten its duration," Daniel DePetris, a fellow at Defense Priorities, wrote for Newsweek. Putin would "continue to pour men and resources into the conflict" rather than see it end in a Russian loss, and "any semblance of a diplomatic settlement" would "evaporate."

The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

And while it's true that Article 5 does not mandate a specific response from member nations in the event of an attack — meaning many current members "could say they are complying" with the provision by doing what they are currently doing and supplying Ukraine with weapons, among other initiatives — "there has always been an implicit assumption that an armed attack on a NATO member would result in military action by other NATO members," said The Washington Post columnist Max Boot. If that weren't the case, "it would risk watering down Article 5 and reducing the overall effectiveness of the NATO alliance." As a practical alternative, the European Union should "take the lead in offering Ukraine a road map to membership" to its own collective, while the U.S. should pledge continued and significant military support to Kyiv going forward, as it does for both Taiwan and Israel.

Inviting Ukraine now or "formalizing the inevitability of its membership" also "ignores the fact that the country is arguably not ready" for admission from a political standpoint, John Deni, a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, wrote for Foreign Policy in May. It's likely Kyiv can eventually change that but "probably not until after the war ends and then contingent upon a broader consensus across Ukrainian society."

Opening the door

To leave Ukraine outside NATO is nothing more than an "invitation" to renewed Russian aggression in the future, Marc A. Thiessen and Stephen Biegun argued for the Post, noting they nonetheless believe official accession should occur after a cease-fire is reached. Putin has never attacked a NATO country, and the sooner he realizes that Ukraine "belongs in the West," a reality NATO membership will help cement, "the sooner he will be forced to accept that he has lost his war." Such a security guarantee would also help Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy sell a "cease-fire or armistice to his citizens," especially if his forces fail to eradicate Kremlin troops completely.

Moreover, leaving Ukraine on the sidelines of the alliance would serve as a "serious military blunder," Jeff Jacoby surmised in The Boston Globe. "When it comes to the essential purpose for which NATO was created — deterring, confronting and defeating Russia in battle — Ukraine today has more experience than any other nation." That makes it an "unparalleled asset" and one NATO "can no longer afford to deny itself."

Eventually, when peace ultimately does emerge, said Randy Scheunemann and Evelyn Farkas, opinion contributors for The Hill, would we like to see a "Ukraine left to itself" and "vulnerable to Russian attack?" Or rather a Ukraine folded into NATO and "solidly behind the one red line Putin and future Russian leaders will dare not cross?" It's a stark choice and one that has convinced skeptics like Henry Kissinger that "NATO membership for Ukraine is the wisest choice."