In the lead-up to this year’s NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, there was much anticipation regarding Ukraine’s prospects of becoming a member of the alliance. However, it became clear that Ukraine would not be granted full membership while its conflict with Russia was ongoing. NATO membership entails the obligation for member states to come to the aid of any attacked member, and President Biden has been cautious about avoiding a war with Russia over Ukraine.
While a clear signal was expected, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky expressed his anger on Twitter, calling it “unprecedented and absurd” that no time frame was set for Ukraine’s NATO membership. Members of the U.S. delegation were reportedly furious with Zelensky’s outburst and urged him to embrace the security aid being promised.
Columnists Max Boot and Josh Rogin discussed the situation and its implications for the future of the war in Ukraine. Boot noted that the alliance was not united on Ukraine’s immediate membership, citing concerns about involving NATO in a conflict with a nuclear-armed state. He emphasized the importance of providing Ukraine with weapons to counter Russian aggression, which NATO allies have been committed to.
Rogin argued that the focus on NATO membership was a distraction from the real issues in U.S. Ukraine policy, such as the insufficient military support provided to Ukraine. He also highlighted the determination of Ukrainians to fight with or without external help and emphasized the need to support them to avoid a prolonged war.
Boot suggested that a sustainable stalemate between Ukraine and Russia would be necessary for a realistic chance at NATO membership. He drew parallels with the division of Germany and Korea, where clearly defined borders were fortified by both sides. He also stressed the need for the U.S. to provide Ukraine with more weapons, such as F-16s, to achieve a defensible line and push back Russian forces.
Ultimately, the long-term sustainability of a resolution would require Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders from 1991, with a potential exception for Crimea if Ukraine regains control of the rest of the Russian-occupied territory. The conversation highlighted the complexities and challenges surrounding Ukraine’s NATO membership and the ongoing conflict with Russia.
Listen to the full conversation on The Washington Post’s “Please, Go On” podcast feed.
What are the main obstacles for Ukraine’s full membership in NATO, and how does the ongoing conflict with Russia play a role in this?
In the lead-up to this year’s NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, all eyes were on Ukraine’s potential membership in the alliance. However, it quickly became clear that Ukraine’s ongoing conflict with Russia was a major obstacle to achieving full membership. This is because NATO membership comes with the obligation for member states to come to the aid of any attacked member, and President Biden has been cautious about avoiding a war with Russia over Ukraine.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky expressed his frustration on Twitter, stating that it was “unprecedented and absurd” that no timeline was set for Ukraine’s NATO membership. This outburst reportedly angered members of the U.S. delegation, who urged Zelensky to focus on embracing the security aid that was being promised instead.
Columnists Max Boot and Josh Rogin analyzed the situation and its implications for the future of the war in Ukraine. Boot noted that there was a lack of unity within the alliance regarding Ukraine’s immediate membership, citing concerns about involving NATO in a conflict with a nuclear-armed state like Russia. However, he emphasized the importance of providing Ukraine with necessary weapons to counter Russian aggression, a commitment that NATO allies had already made.
Rogin, on the other hand, argued that the focus on NATO membership was diverting attention from the real issues in U.S.-Ukraine policy, such as the insufficient military support provided to Ukraine. He also highlighted the determination of Ukrainians to fight for their country, with or without external help, and stressed the need to support them in order to prevent a prolonged war.
Boot proposed that a sustainable stalemate between Ukraine and Russia would be necessary for any realistic chance at NATO membership. Drawing parallels with the divisions in Germany and Korea, he suggested that clearly defined borders fortified by both sides could be a solution. He also emphasized the need for the U.S. to provide Ukraine with more weapons, like F-16s, to establish a defensible line and push back Russian forces.
In the end, a long-term resolution would likely require Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders from 1991, with the potential exception of Crimea if Ukraine regains control over the rest of the Russian-occupied territory. The conversation between Boot and Rogin highlighted the complexities and challenges surrounding Ukraine’s NATO membership and the ongoing conflict with Russia.
To listen to the full conversation on The Washington Post’s “Please, Go On” podcast feed, click here.
This insightful article sheds light on the unmet expectations surrounding Ukraine’s NATO membership and the consequential implications for the ongoing war. A must-read for anyone interested in understanding the complex dynamics unfolding in Ukraine’s future.