Is Ukraine Joining NATO Realistic?

By any metric, but especially in its ability to prevent a global war, NATO is arguably the most successful military alliance in history.

The Soviet Union, and now Putin’s Russia, resisted attacking NATO member states for decades thanks mostly to the alliance’s collective defense clause — also known as “Article 5.”

An attack on one member is seen as an attack on all the members — which would bring down the full weight of NATO military might on the aggressor.

This is the sacred NATO pledge.

But just because Putin won’t attack a NATO member (because he’s not suicidal) doesn’t mean that he won’t take advantage of every little gray area and ambiguity in the alliance.

The man is nothing if not opportunistic.

Indeed, it was Ukraine’s desire for closer ties with the West, and Europe more generally, that pissed Putin off in the first place (in 2014). From Putin’s point of view, attacking Ukraine before it had an opportunity to join NATO was essential to stopping it from falling to the West.

Now that Russian troops are on the ground, Ukraine can’t join NATO without risking World War III — or at least, that’s what Putin is counting on. Therefore, it’s in Russia’s best interests to keep fighting for as long as possible.

What if Ukraine were admitted to NATO today?

Let’s visit an alternate timeline where Ukraine gets NATO membership while involved in its current fight for survival.

First, I would love to be in the room when Putin is notified that Ukraine is now a NATO member. His reaction would be priceless and would range from giving a stoic Russian shrug to shitting his pants.

Internally, he would address the Russian public through state-owned media that this is proof that NATO is filled with fascists and committed to the destruction of the Russian state.

Externally, it is unlikely that Putin would immediately withdraw his troops — forcing NATO to make the first move.

Step one in the universal NATO playbook is the establishment of a no-fly zone and the massive influx of air defense assets. This would effectively turn Ukraine into the most heavily defended airspace outside of Washington DC.

The million-dollar question is this: Once U.S. and NATO aircraft start killing Russian pilots in the air and Russian air defense assets on the ground, will Putin escalate?

Perhaps the real question isn’t one of “WillPutin escalate?” but “Can Putin escalate?”

Conventionally, the answer is no. Thanks to Ukraine, Russia’s conventional armed forces are weaker than they have been since the fall of the Soviet Union.

The problem, of course, is Russia’s unconventional assets.

The guy still has thousands of nuclear weapons, and as poorly maintained as they likely are, at least a few of them still work.

This is why Ukraine joining NATO is something of a dilemma for the United States.

The U.S. spends approximately $90 billion on national and military intelligence programs and we’re still not entirely sure what Putin would do if confronted with this situation.

So, to play it safe, the U.S. hems and haws on possible Ukrainian membership.

The case for Ukraine in NATO

Ultimately, if NATO wrapped its arms around Ukraine, it would make it invulnerable to future Russian aggression.

In a NATO/Russia conventional war, the numbers aren’t even close:

NATO membership would also force several reforms on the country that Ukraine would benefit from. For instance, NATO members must uphold democracy, suppress corruption, make progress toward a market economy, keep the military under civilian control, and be good neighbors while respecting sovereignty.

Membership would also bring Ukraine up to the NATO standard of equipment and finally do away with archaic Soviet technology and warfighting doctrine.

NATO would also benefit from what is currently Europe’s most battle-hardened army. The lessons learned from Ukraine’s fight will be written in tomorrow’s field manuals in the U.S. and NATO. For example, what are the weak points of a Russian BMP? Which anti-tank weapons work best? How can a modern army navigate a particularly brutal Russian minefield? How might a Western army combat Russia’s human wave tactics? Ukraine has the answers to all these questions and more.

Ukrainian ingenuity in adapting consumer technology together with both Soviet and Western hardware has been downright astonishing. Presently, there is no other army on the planet that has as much experience fighting a land war with off-the-shelf drones and other consumer kit.

Finally, Ukraine is a kindred spirit — they, like the United States, feel ideologically obligated to stand up to Vladimir Putin’s brand of crony authoritarianism.

The case against Ukraine in NATO

The United States takes Article 5 very seriously.

When terrorists attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001, ALL NATO allies stood with America as if they had also been attacked.

In return, U.S. President Joe Biden has made it clear that we will go to war against any nation that attacks a member state, including Ukraine if Ukraine were a NATO member.

Despite many Eastern European NATO members who want Ukraine’s NATO admission now, Biden is still concerned about the immediate consequences of going to war with Russia.

What’s more, offering Ukraine a set date to join NATO after the war ends would be counterproductive as it would give Putin a reason for never-ending the conflict.

Also, the U.S. is hesitant to guarantee Ukraine’s future NATO membership if membership itself might be a negotiating point in a future Ukraine/Russia cease-fire.

I’m aware that “negotiating with Russia” is the unpopular line. I agree with Zelenskyy that the only way the war should end is with Russia’s complete withdraw.

But regardless of what I feel, or Zelenskyy for that matter, President Biden doesn’t want to remove options from the table for ending the war.

Even if Biden were to change his position on accelerating NATO membership for Ukraine, he cannot ensure a successor would honor treaty obligations.

Hell, that walking legal nightmare Trump would probably disband NATO and give Russia half of Ukraine to end the war tomorrow.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg is already working to get Ukraine admitted as a full member

In July, Stoltenberg spoke at the Vilnius NATO Summit in Lithuania where he outlined a three-element package that will bring Ukraine closer to NATO.

First, the assembled leaders agreed to a new multi-year assistance program to speed up the transition from Soviet-era doctrines and equipment to NATO standards.

Ukraine was already hard at work on this before Russia’s 2022 invasion. U.S. forces had been training Ukrainians on NATO doctrine since roughly 2015.

Since compatibility and joint interoperability with NATO forces are a requirement to join, this assistance program should expedite Ukraine’s progress.

The second element is establishing a new NATO-Ukraine Council, which will be a forum for crisis consultations and decision-making where Ukraine and NATO will sit together as equals.

Ukraine already had a pretty close relationship with NATO before now — dialogue and cooperation started when newly independent Ukraine joined the North Atlantic Cooperation Council in 1991 and the Partnership for Peace program in 1994.

Finally, leaders reaffirmed that Ukraine would eventually become a member of NATO and agreed to remove the requirement for a Membership Action Plan. This essentially changes Ukraine’s NATO path from a two-step process to a one-step process.

Whether Secretary General Stoltenberg discussed this with the U.S. is unknown, but it was probably a calculated response meant to keep Zelenskyy engaged with NATO. After all, Jens knows that new members can only be added by the consensus of current members.

Some learned this the hard way when a single NATO member, Turkey, held up Finland and Sweden’s membership process.

So, if Biden doesn’t want to commit to Ukraine in NATO and Jens is sending mixed signals, what’s a good compromise?

Ian Bond, Director of Foreign Policy at the Center for European Reform says the West should offer:

“genuine defense guarantees, of the kind the United States offers Japan and South Korea, provided by a coalition of the willing on a bilateral basis, with Western forces stationed on Ukrainian soil, backed up by (at least) the UK and French nuclear deterrents.”

I have immense respect for Mr. Bond, but what he’s describing is NATO in all but name. The security guarantees we provide South Korea, for instance, are essentially the same as NATO’s Article 5.

Although I do agree with one of his statements — I think we should station Western forces on Ukrainian soil. Such a move may make Putin think twice before firing off a Kinzhal at Lviv.

After all, Soviet forces had “military advisors” scattered all over North Vietnam in the late 60s. It wouldn’t be a huge stretch for the U.S. to deploy troops to Ukraine.

I have it on background that we already have several members of the Special Activities Center (SAC) — a division of the Central Intelligence Agency responsible for covert and paramilitary operations — on the ground in Ukraine.

In reality, NATO membership will likely be a negotiating term to end the war. If Putin persists with his pointless special military operation, that term should be removed from the table — the longer he continues his illegal war, the more likely Ukraine will be offered NATO membership.

Unless, of course, Trump wins the 2024 presidential election. Then all bets are off.

And come to think of it… That might be Putin’s plan all along: Wait until a MAGA-type conservative takes over in the U.S. who will stop supporting Ukraine on day 1.

The only way to ensure that doesn’t happen is to get out and vote for people friendly to Ukraine’s cause.

Слава Укра?н?!