The question of Ukraine joining NATO has gained renewed attention, particularly as geopolitical tensions with Russia remain unresolved. While U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s desire to end Russia’s war in Ukraine is evident, the challenge lies in achieving a fair and lasting peace.
A Strategic Approach for Lasting Peace
Providing Ukraine with sufficient weapons and resources to reclaim its internationally recognized borders from 1991 is an ideal solution. However, due to inconsistent policies and hesitation in Washington, the U.S. and its European allies have only given Ukraine enough aid to endure the conflict—not to secure a decisive victory, writes Luke Coffey, a Hudson Institute fellow, in an analysis for Politico.
Key Preconditions for Peace
For any resolution, two conditions are critical:
- A Just Peace for Ukraine: Any agreement must ensure Ukraine perceives the solution as equitable.
- Security Against Future Russian Aggression: History indicates that Russia may attempt further invasions if conflicts only pause instead of being resolved.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s suggestion of ending the “hot phase” of the war in exchange for NATO membership highlights the importance of securing Ukraine’s future.
NATO Membership as a Path to Peace
Ukraine joining NATO could be a pivotal move for Eastern Europe’s stability. Membership would deter future Russian aggression and ensure shared responsibilities among NATO members. Even if a post-war agreement leaves parts of Ukraine under de facto Russian control, there is a practical path forward:
Three Essential Steps for NATO Membership
- A Commitment to Non-Violence:
As part of a peace deal, Ukraine could formally commit to resolving territorial disputes diplomatically. This approach mirrors West Germany’s 1954 declaration before joining NATO, which pledged not to use force to reunify Germany. - Selective Security Guarantees:
NATO could extend Article 5 protections (collective defense) only to territories under Ukrainian control. This precedent exists—Article 6 of the NATO treaty excludes territories like Guam and the Falklands from collective defense guarantees. - Amendment to Article 6:
NATO could amend Article 6 to explicitly exclude Ukrainian territories occupied by Russia. Similar modifications occurred when Greece and Turkey joined NATO in 1951 and after Algeria gained independence from France in 1963.
Addressing Territorial Disputes
Critics may argue that unresolved territorial disputes disqualify countries from NATO membership. However, NATO’s 1995 Study on Enlargement clarifies that such disputes are a factor, not a barrier, in membership decisions. Examples like Estonia (which joined NATO in 2004 despite unresolved borders with Russia) and Croatia (which joined in 2009 with disputes with Serbia) illustrate this flexibility.
Removing Russia’s De Facto Veto
Russia has used military invasions and territorial occupations to block countries from joining NATO. By temporarily amending Article 6, NATO can eliminate Moscow’s veto power, starting with Ukraine. The key question is whether transatlantic leaders possess the political will and creativity to implement this strategy.
Granting Ukraine NATO membership under adjusted terms would not only strengthen Eastern European security but also reaffirm NATO’s credibility as a collective defense alliance. By adapting its policies, NATO can counter Russia’s aggression while paving the way for a stable and peaceful Europe.