As all eyes focus on what appears to be the opening moves of Ukraine's long-anticipated spring offensive, looming just over the horizon is next month's NATO summit in Vilnius, where the issue of NATO membership for Ukraine will be front and center. Rhetoric and aspirations aside, the United States should deliver a polite—and permanent—"no" on this crucial question.
At the moment, there are a number of enthusiastic and distinguished advocates for providing NATO membership, and thus a U.S. security guarantee, to Ukraine once the war is over. There is another camp which shares the view of Andriy Zagorodnyuk, former Ukrainian defense minister, who wrote in Foreign Affairs that Ukraine should be invited to join NATO "right now." The truth is that, whether during the current conflict or in a postwar future, adding Kyiv to NATO would unacceptably risk disaster. Despite the rhetoric, NATO has already demonstrated it is not willing to send troops to fight and die for Ukraine.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg repeated last week his oft-stated declaration that "all Allies agree that Ukraine will become a member of the (NATO) Alliance." The following day Antony Blinken added the U.S. and Western alliance was "helping meet Ukraine's needs on the current battlefield while developing a force that can deter and defend against aggression for years to come," offering that "Ukraine's membership in NATO will be a matter for Allies and Ukraine—not Russia—to decide."
Though Biden's recognition of Russian red lines has shifted over the course of the war, he has properly been immovable from the war's first day on his opposition to sending U.S. troops to Ukraine into a direct clash with Russian forces. Literally hours after Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022, Biden emphatically declared American forces "are not and will not be engaged in a conflict with Russia in Ukraine."
The president also made "crystal clear" that the U.S. would "defend every inch of...NATO territory," but not allow America to be drawn into destructive war that could all too easily escalate into a nuclear confrontation. The next month, Biden emphasized his conviction against getting dragged into a war unrelated to our national security by starkly laying out the consequences of fighting Russia.
"The idea that we're going to send in...planes and tanks and trains going in with American pilots and American crews," Biden warned, "that's called 'World War Three.' Okay? Let's get it straight here." That was true on March 11, 2022, it is true today, and it will be true tomorrow. The idea that there could be a war between two nuclear superpowers where the fighting remains limited to conventional engagement is dangerously naive.
The United States Armed Forces are designed to defend our country against any opponent who attacks or attempts to attack our country, people, or allies. We are not, nor should we ever be, a global "first responder" to be used for the benefit of any nation. We can and routinely do provide assistance, aid, and training to scores of countries around the world and should continue to do so where it benefits U.S. national security.
Extending NATO membership to Ukraine would increase the chance of fighting a war against Russia and put our security at heightened risk, not make us safer. One can reasonably argue that by continuing to dangle the false promise of NATO membership to Kyiv, the alliance will induce Ukraine to make policy and battlefield decisions that gamble with Ukrainian lives in the hopes of getting the U.S. and others to come to its rescue. NATO requires unanimous agreement to add a new member and that will not happen for the foreseeable future for Kyiv. That is not to say, however, there is nothing we can do for Ukraine.
Armed neutrality is a viable path for Zelensky. It is unrealistic to expect that Ukraine will reclaim its 1991 borders again. The most likely outcome of this war—regardless of how distasteful Ukraine and its many supporters around the world may find it—is a negotiated settlement whereby Kyiv doesn't get all its pre-war territories returned. But that settlement could also include provisions for the surviving Ukraine to remain an independent and free country, able to conduct business with Europe as it sees fit and to arm itself with whatever weapons it chooses.
While all 31 NATO countries will not agree to extend membership to Ukraine, there is almost universal willingness to extend financial support, humanitarian supplies, and military aid of all kinds to Kyiv for the foreseeable future. Over time, Zelensky and future leaders can build a strong military that will effectively provide for its own security and deter future Russian attacks.
I understand and sympathize with the Ukrainian people that believe any resolution to this war that doesn't return all its territory is repugnant. But the reality of the matter is that the United States cannot and should not make a binding agreement through NATO membership to Ukraine that could see the war escalate, potentially resulting in nuclear escalation. Such an outcome would be catastrophic for Ukraine, the United States, and the world as a whole.
Daniel L. Davis is a Senior Fellow for Defense Priorities and a former Lt. Col. in the U.S. Army who deployed into combat zones four times. Follow him @DanielLDavis1
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
