European Centre for Counterterrorism and Intelligence Studies, Germany & Netherlands – ECCI
Zelenskyy: Ukraine can join NATO or acquire nukes
eureporter – NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte stated that Ukraine ‘will be the 33rd member, but another country might join before them. However, Ukraine will definitely become a NATO member, as decided in Washington. Now, it’s just a matter of timing.’ We have heard this kind of statement ten times at each NATO summit since the 2008 and I for one no longer believe it. The reality is German chancellors of all political persuasions and since 2009 Democrat and Republican US presidents have opposed Ukraine joining NATO for nearly two decades, writes Taras Kuzio.
Each NATO summit since 2008 has issued obfuscating statements about Ukraine’s ‘future’ inside NATO. NATO leaders have made a long list of excuses not to invite Ukraine into NATO from low public support, loss of territory, the need for more reforms, and finally corruption. NATO – unlike the EU – does not have a ‘Copenhagen Criteria’ of concrete reforms which candidates should implement. If corruption was a criterion for membership many members of NATO, such as Turkey, should not be members.
NATO’s unwillingness to invite Ukraine and Georgia into NATO reflects the reality of Russia having a veto over the Alliance’s membership. No NATO general secretary or US president would ever admit to a Russian veto, but its existence is beyond doubt.
NATO de facto accepts that Eurasia is Russia’s exclusive sphere of influence which has been a consistent foreign policy goal of Russian Presidents Boris Yeltsyn and Vladimir Putin since the early 1990s.
NATO’s policy of neither offering Ukraine membership or refusing Ukraine membership has been disastrous to Ukrainian and Georgian security and led to wars and invasions. NATO’s deliberate obfuscation led to Ukraine being left in a grey zone of insecurity where it was at the mercy of Russian imperialism and military aggression in 2014 and especially 2022.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said to the Ukrainian parliament ‘For decades, Russia has exploited geopolitical uncertainty in Europe, specifically the fact that Ukraine is not a NATO member. And this is what tempted Russia to encroach on our security.’
NATO could never admit Russia has a veto over membership of former Soviet countries, such as Ukraine and Georgia, and therefore has issued vacuous statements at its twice yearly summits that Ukraine would join at some undisclosed time in the future.
At the2008 Bucharestsummit a resolution stated ‘NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO.’ Russia invaded Georgia five months later and recognized the ‘independence’ of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
In 2010 at Lisbon, NATO stated ‘At the 2008 Bucharest Summit we agreed that Georgia will become a member of NATO, and we reaffirm all elements of that decision, as well as subsequent decisions.’ Two years later in Chicago, NATO stated ‘Recalling our decisions in relation to Ukraine and our Open-Door policy stated at the Bucharest and Lisbon Summits, NATO is ready to continue to develop its cooperation with Ukraine and assist with the implementation of reforms in the framework of the NATO-Ukraine Commission and the Annual National Programme (ANP).’
Eight months after Russia first invaded Ukraine in February 2014, NATO issued an even more vacuous statement at its Wales summit: ‘An independent, sovereign, and stable Ukraine, firmly committed to democracy and the rule of law, is key to Euro-Atlantic security.’ NATO’s statement at its Warsaw (2016) and Brussels (2018) summits cut and pasted from that issued in Wales in 2014: ‘An independent, sovereign and stable Ukraine, firmly committed to democracy and the rule of law, is key to Euro-Atlantic security’ and ‘An independent, sovereign and stable Ukraine, firmly committed to democracy and the rule of law is key for Euro-Atlantic security.’
A year before Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, NATO issued another vacuous statement at its Brussels summit: ‘We reiterate the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP) as an integral part of the process; we reaffirm all elements of that decision, as well as subsequent decisions, including that each partner will be judged on its own merits.’
At NATO’s Madrid summit coming only six months after the full-scale invasion the statement that was issued can only be described as pathetic: ‘We fully support Ukraine’s inherent right to self-defence and to choose its own security arrangements.’
At the Vilnius (2023) and Washington (2024) summits very weak statements were issued that did not differ from others issued since Bucharest. In Vilnius, NATO stated ‘We fully support Ukraine’s right to choose its own security arrangements. Ukraine’s future is in NATO. We reaffirm the commitment we made at the 2008 Summit in Bucharest that Ukraine will become a member of NATO, and today we recognise that Ukraine’s path to full Euro-Atlantic integration has moved beyond the need for the Membership Action Plan’ while in Washington: ‘We fully support Ukraine’s right to choose its own security arrangements and decide its own future, free from outside interference. Ukraine’s future is in NATO.’
NATO has issued ten vacuous statements over the last sixteen years. Given US and Germany’s fear of ‘escalation’ Russia has been de facto given Russia a veto blocking Ukraine’s membership.
Perhaps Ukraine is no longer seeking NATO membership?
President Zelenskyy said that Ukraine should have become a member of NATO in exchange for giving up the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal (at that stage it was bigger than China’s). Zelenskyy added: ‘That is why I said that I cannot understand where justice is in relation to Ukraine. We gave up our nuclear weapons. We did not get NATO. I asked them if you could name me other allies or another ‘security umbrella’, some security measures and guarantees for Ukraine that would be commensurate with NATO. No one could tell me.’
President Zelenskyy said at the Council of Europe that Ukraine has only two options, NATO membership or again becoming a nuclear weapons state. Afterwards, Zelenskyy backtracked from this by stating Ukraine did not seek to again acquire nuclear weapons but Ukraine should receive a ‘security umbrella.’
Three decades ago, John J. Mearsheimer wrote that Ukraine’s security could only be guaranteed by nuclear weapons. Since 2014, Russia’s attack on the international order, flouting of international law and breaking of UN sanctions against Iran and North Korea is undermining the non-proliferation regime. It is not out of bounds that South Korea and Ukraine could become nuclear weapons states in the future. After all, Israel, Pakistan and India are nuclear states, and they are not diplomatically ostracized or sanctioned.
Most NATO members, including the US, have signed security agreements with Ukraine. But how Zelenskyy and NATO members view these security agreements is quite different.
The provision of security guarantees will be more expensive than NATO membership and it is unclear if the West can afford them? At a time when a third of NATO’s 32 members are still not spending 2% of GDP on defence, to provide credible security guarantees leading NATO members would have to spend 3%. Canada, home to one of the world’s largest Ukrainian diasporas, will only reach 2% in 2032.
Fear of ‘escalation’ has been prominent in US and German military policy towards Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion. Ukrainians might be excused for being sceptical towards Western countries sending troops to Ukraine if Russia launched a third invasion after a ‘Minsk-3 peace agreement’ was signed, especially if Donald Trump is elected US president. The US and Germany might not wish to risk a NATO war with Russia by supporting Ukraine after a third Russian invasion.
Ukraine has after all been here three times before.
Firstly, in 2014, the US and UK ignored their commitments under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum where Ukraine received security assurances in return for giving up its nuclear arsenal. Western sanctions against Russia, imposed only after the MH19 civilian airliner was shot down in July 2014, were quite ineffectual. Most Western countries continued business as usual with Russia; Germany, for example, continued to build Nord Stream II.
Secondly, the Barack Obama administration advised Ukraine to not fight back against Russian forces invading Crimea in Spring 2014. Obama vetoed the sending of military aid and on the eve of the full-scale invasion, Biden only offered light weapons for partisan warfare believing, like most think-tank experts and academics, Ukraine would be quickly defeated.
Thirdly, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko was advised by the US and Europe to forget Crimea as it was lost to Ukraine ‘forever.’ Crimea was not included in the two Minsk agreements signed in 2014-2015. Ukraine’s attacks on Crimea in 2022 were not universally welcomed in NATO, even though Crimea is recognized as Ukrainian territory.
Ukraine’s security options are limited to three options. Firstly, US and German unwillingness to ‘provoke’ Russia rules out NATO inviting Ukraine to become a member. Secondly, because of history, Ukrainians are suspicious about Western security guarantees. Thirdly, Ukraine again becomes a nuclear state.
