If Ukraine had been in NATO, Russia would never have invaded without risking a war with the United States and the rest of the alliance. Indeed, it was the apparent overtures made by Ukraine regarding NATO membership that gave Vladimir Putin the false justification for annexing Crimea in 2014 and all that followed. As with the 2008 invasion of Georgia, he is willing to sacrifice better relations with the West to defend what remains of Russia’s post-Soviet sphere of influence. The other side of the coin is that Western countries that do not want to provoke Russia into a larger war are reluctant to see Ukraine in NATO for exactly the same reason: they would be required, under Article 5, to help Ukraine.
This week’s meeting of NATO leaders in Vilnius is emblematic of this dilemma, unfolding in a Baltic state that was once part of the USSR. This encroachment on Russia’s borders has been cited by the Kremlin as justification for its invasion of Ukraine.
Germany is among the leading NATO countries ready to veto Ukraine’s membership, fearing such a move could spark a war with Russia. Even more important than Germany’s opposition is that of Washington. The United States is lukewarm about the proposal and wants the Vilnius summit to focus on security guarantees for the country, rather than accelerating its NATO membership, as proposed by Britain. Joe Biden said yesterday that he doesn’t think Ukraine is “ready” for NATO membership. Yet the reality is that Ukraine’s blockage of the alliance over the past 30 years has not prevented conflict. It may not have spread to other countries, but it is actually a military confrontation by proxy, given the amount of weapons supplied by NATO to Ukraine.
Kiev is entitled to treat such an approach with skepticism, as its independence was supposed to be protected by the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, signed by the nuclear powers, including Russia, in exchange for giving up its atomic weapons. If he hadn’t, kyiv would have had the ultimate deterrent against a Russian invasion. The signatories of the memorandum have an obligation to Ukraine, which some seem to believe extends only to supplying them with the weapons necessary to annihilate the Russian army at great expense.
Offering NATO membership does not necessarily draw the ire of Moscow, as seen with the membership of Finland, which has an extensive border with Russia. Establishing a membership timetable would reinforce the madness of Putin’s invasion.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month, then get a year for just $9 with our exclusive US offer.