Ukraine–NATO: Endless entry process

If you tried to list all the excuses for why Ukraine hasn’t been admitted to NATO, you’d end up with a full catalog of empty promises. Among them, the repeated assurance that "the door is open for Ukraine" stands out. This phrase has been repeated so often that it’s impossible to take it seriously anymore.

Now there’s a new excuse: a country at war cannot join the North Atlantic Alliance. But before 2014, Ukraine wasn’t at war. Were we supposed to wait until the terrorist Russian Federation attacked us?

Brussels remains hesitant to go beyond vague promises about possible membership. This deeply affects ordinary Ukrainians, who can’t understand why those under constant threat of Russian invasion had to wait for that invasion without securing NATO protection. And how is Ukraine any less deserving than countries that joined over 20 years ago, avoiding the occupation of their territories by the Moscow horde?

The West also fails to acknowledge that today Ukraine has unparalleled combat experience — more than any army in Europe. Add to this our state’s strategic location, acting as a constant barrier to Russian aggression, and the benefits of our inclusion should be clear.

It’s hard to ignore the right to life of Ukrainian civilians, who die every day under Russian missiles, drones, and bombs due to Western indecision. Yet the same politicians, untouched by the reality of Russian missile strikes, continue to make key decisions about drastically changing aid to Ukraine.

For them, our pain, despair, and grief are little more than a televised image that prompts yet another expression of “deep concern.” And nothing beyond that. With this cautious, calculated aid, Russia’s war against Ukraine could drag on indefinitely. Ukraine is forced to fight with one hand tied behind its back — still lacking air superiority, long-range ammunition, or the ability to strike across enemy territory with American and European weapons.

This half-hearted approach not only emboldens Putin to flirt with the idea of World War III but also damages the White House’s credibility among its allies and global supporters. The Pentagon knows exactly what aid could shift the tide in the war. Yet the Biden administration continued to delay it.

The endlessly drawn-out discussions about Ukraine's possible NATO membership feel like chasing a "mechanical hare." Sure, you can run, but the outcome is obvious to everyone from the start. NATO keeps saying the door is open for Ukraine and that membership will happen when Ukraine is ready. But there’s a catch. The door might be "unlocked," but there’s a big difference between an unlocked door and one that’s actually open. An unlocked door doesn’t guarantee it’ll ever be opened.

It’s no surprise that, after shaking off Moscow’s grip, former Soviet states aim to join NATO. Some have succeeded. But for Ukraine, the road to NATO has dragged on for nearly 30 years. Our country is fed empty promises, dressed up as progress toward integration. Today, Ukraine is defending all of Europe from a Russian invasion, yet we’re told we’re still not ready for NATO membership.

The hesitation of U.S. President Joe Biden has turned the Russian-Ukrainian war into a grinding positional conflict. This has led to static frontlines, minor advances in isolated areas like forest strips and villages, and failed attempts to transition to maneuver warfare. Pentagon generals know full well that this kind of war can drag on indefinitely.

Had Ukraine joined NATO by 2014, Russia would never have invaded. If we had joined by 2022, this war might not have happened at all. The Russian-Ukrainian war is, at its core, the result of the West’s lack of resolve. Let’s be honest: real security guarantees would mean U.S. or Western European troops stationed in unoccupied parts of Ukraine. That would bring us much closer to peace.

Now, imagine this scenario: unable to defeat Ukraine, Putin starts a new war in Northern Europe. In that case, Ukraine’s experience fighting Russia and willingness to assist NATO would be invaluable to the Alliance. Many signs suggest such a conflict is only a matter of time.

Sadly, not everyone in the West grasps the stakes. A Russian victory in Ukraine would set humanity back centuries. Ukraine doesn’t just need weapons to defend its sovereignty — it needs military aid to ensure Moscow can’t destroy democratic civilization. Ukraine was promised protection in the event of an attack, and it’s time for those promises to be upheld.

Almost three years ago, terrorist Muscovy launched its attack on Ukraine, and the West failed to keep its promises. All the talk about NATO being unable to cross red lines and accept Ukraine only showcases the weakness of the Western world. Russia has no right to decide which defense organizations other countries can join.

NATO was established to stop Russia from seizing foreign lands in Europe, and it has been successful in doing so until now. But in Ukraine's case, the Alliance’s strategy needs serious revision. Up to this point, NATO seemed focused solely on ensuring Ukraine didn’t lose. Instead, it should have made it clear that the goal is to put Russia back in its place and restore Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders.

While US President Joe Biden is undoubtedly a wise politician, his approach to Ukraine has been overly cautious. Biden viewed any use of Western military power in Ukraine’s war with Russia as unthinkable. But the refusal to allow Ukraine to strike deep into Russian territory with American weapons reflects the politically motivated incompetence that defines current foreign policy.

NATO has dangled the promise of membership before Ukraine for decades, shaping the policies of many pro-Western Ukrainian leaders. Ukrainians have long hoped to join NATO and the EU to escape Russia’s grip and block Moscow from dragging Ukraine into a Soviet-style sphere of influence.

Ukraine’s two revolutions, in 2004 and 2014, were clear declarations of its European and Western choice. Yet, the US and NATO failed to do enough to solidify that decision. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was not inevitable — it was fueled by the uncertainty surrounding Ukraine’s NATO and EU membership.

Joining NATO represents a civilizational choice for Ukrainians, but it isn’t something we can decide on our own. For now, we’re left collecting NATO’s promises. If this time it’s “irreversible membership,” next time it might be “guaranteed membership.” Both sound appealing, but they mean nothing in practice.

The half-hearted and insufficient support provided to Ukraine so far only underscores NATO’s strategic hesitation. This indecisiveness emboldens not just Putin but other authoritarian regimes that see international law breaking down before their eyes.

Recently, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov claimed that peace in Ukraine could only come if Ukraine abandoned its NATO ambitions and ceded some of its territory. He made this statement during an interview with American journalist Tucker Carlson.

So the question arises — will Moscow now decide who can and cannot join NATO? If the Alliance bows to the ultimatums of Putin’s regime, it might as well amend its founding documents to say that any country can join NATO — except Ukraine. At least then, we would have clarity about where we stand.

Source

About the author. Viktor Kaspruk, journalist

The editorial staff does not always share the opinions expressed by the blog authors.