The NATO charade must end
The West has no intention of allowing Ukraine into NATO. It should say so.
This week’s NATO summit ended with a whimper. In a joint statement released Tuesday evening, leaders of NATO countries fooled no-one with a mealy-mouthed compromise promising NATO admission to Ukraine, but only when ‘Allies agree and conditions are met’. Translation: not today, and no promises about tomorrow.
Zelensky, having caught wind of the fudge, pre-empted the communique with a statement that captured the ridiculousness of the situation: “It’s unprecedented and absurd when time frame is not set neither for the invitation nor for Ukraine's membership. While at the same time vague wording about "conditions" is added even for inviting Ukraine.” A photo of the Ukrainian president standing apart from other leaders, further sticking out in his green camo, seemed to capture the situation.
Day two of the summit brought further farce. UK defence minister Ben Wallace chided Ukraine for its ungratefulness, with demands for gratitude also on the lips of US officials. The BBC, trying to downplay Wallace’s remarks, said they ‘were like a parent telling a child to remember to write a thank-you letter to a relative so they get a present next year too’. The imperial, patrician attitude of the old BBC is still alive and well, at least in matters of foreign policy.
The dressing-downs were tempered by new, multi-year promises to support Ukraine’s military from a range of G7 countries, and repeated insistences that, despite the Tuesday communique, Ukraine’s admission to NATO was a question of ‘when not if’. But this merely restated what was supposed to have been the policy since 2008.
The fact is, the US has no plans to allow Ukraine to join NATO – even if some of the other members might be open to it. While some insist this is because America finds it more useful to prolong the war out of the desire to bleed Russia dry at Ukraine’s expense, the more mundane answer is more likely: Western leaders have become incapable of shaping the world order.
With war ongoing, simply admitting Ukraine now is a non-starter. Although presumably some fudge could be invented, NATO admission would in theory mean Article 5 obligations for NATO members to send troops. But as one British general stated, “We are not going to go to war on behalf of the Ukrainians”.
But a promise of admission after the war remains more complex still. NATO leaders have no desire for an enormous, volatile border with Russia, and no plan for resolving the ‘Russia question’ about Moscow’s place in Europe. Simply declaring Ukraine a part of NATO after the war would not solve the issue – without a resolution to the instabilities that created the war, dangers would continue. The question of Ukraine’s security in Europe could only be solved by a fundamental re-ordering of Europe’s security – something no politician has the ideas, willpower or representative clout to resolve.
Instead of NATO membership, Western allies have hit upon the idea of ‘Israeli-style’ security guarantees – code for ongoing, reliable weapons deliveries. More weapons are essential if Ukraine is to defend its territory, and in practise are more useful than empty promises (even if the appropriate level of ‘gratitude’ is to be required). But Western countries continue to vacillate on the kinds of weapons that might make a qualitative difference to Ukrainian defence. As far as the Israel comparison goes (Zelensky himself has made it before), Ukraine lacks one big weapon the Israelis have.
But on even bread-and-butter issues like ammunition, the lack of energy in Western countries is palpable: the US assures its allies that significant quantities of shells will be available – but only by 2025, whilst the EU continues to tie itself in knots on the question of a major ammunition purchase on Ukraine’s behalf.
Yet, Western leaders continue to pretend to hold open the door to NATO. In part, this is out of a genuine desire to give Ukraine something for its relentless defence of its territory. In part, this continues the unconscious assumption of Western leaders that NATO expansion is the logical course of European history (no matter what Russia thinks about it). But in most part, Western leaders simply hope that the ‘Russia question’ will just go away – the decision about Ukraine’s NATO membership can then be taken, as leaders are fond of saying, sometime in the future.
The problem for Ukraine is obvious: how can it take the West at its word? In large part, it does not: note how hesitant Ukrainian officials were to believe US ‘intelligence’ about the impending invasion. Ukrainians also know that the surest guarantee for Ukraine is in the strength of its military, not which pieces of paper it signs. Ukrainians regularly recall the hollow words of the Budapest Memorandum, in which it gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for promises of security from both the West and Russia. The alternative then remains military strength. It was remarkable that the increasingly zombified Mitch McConnell had by far the most perspicacious western remark on the NATO affair: “Ukraine’s war will not be won with yard signs or hollow promises to hold Putin accountable. It will be won with weapons. Anyone who is truly concerned … should support giving our friends the capacities they need.”
But the promise of NATO membership is, perhaps, too big a carrot for Ukrainians to ignore. Even if it is a distant prospect, even if it is with string attached, even if it has a small chance of coming off, the payoff is so large that Ukraine cannot afford to rule it out. So, it feels compelled to continue this rigmarole of half-promises and disappointments. It is also possible that some have become too credulous of Western assurances. Since the war began, Ukrainian outlets have aired many an interview with ordinary Ukrainians, soldiers and civilians, who know that the West’s support is deeply conditional. But some of Ukraine’s NGO class clearly mistook the rhetoric of Western leaders for reality. Did Zelensky himself begun to believe the hype?
Ukraine wants its independence and so needs to beat off Russia. But to do this it is forced to navigate a NATO ‘alliance’ that is far more fractious than is generally assumed. It needs to extract whatever weapons it can, without relying too much on vague assurances. After all, the structural conditions which led Macron to warn that NATO is becoming brain-dead have not evaporated. Among the West, there is both an absence of vision (who can imagine a Europe either with or without Russia?) – and an absence of common-sense (German companies will continue to find ways to trade with Russia).
A dose of honesty would go a long way here. The situation would be much more straightforward if NATO countries admitted in public what they say in private: Ukraine will never be a NATO member. Some believe the Americans are holding off stating this in the hope they can use it as a bargaining chip with Russia. But it is neither clear that Russia is primarily concerned with NATO expansion, nor particularly significant to bargain away something you never took seriously to begin with.
If NATO stated this fact, there would undoubtedly be a major outcry. This is, sadly, the cost of false promises. But continuing the charade only makes the situation worse. Perhaps contemplating this reaction might be enough to make Western countries try and grapple with a realistic way to help secure Ukraine’s freedom. But in the interim, let everyone know what the Ukrainians do: Ukraine is free so long as it can hold off Russia, not with promises, but with weapons.
Jacob Reynolds is partnerships manager at Academy of Ideas. He tweets @jacobreynolds
Academy of Ideas promotes debate on the major issues facing us all. As with all our Substack articles, this post intends to open, not close, a discussion. You can support our work by becoming a paid subscriber.
