Conventional wisdom holds that Ukraine’s long-term security is best served by keeping Kyiv under NATO. However, this is wrong for various reasons. First, the duration of the war is likely to be prolonged rather than shortened. Even the faintest prospect of a negotiated solution would disappear if Ukrainians were given the option to participate. If Russian President Vladimir Putin knew that Ukraine would become a NATO member at the end of the conflict, he would have no incentive to end the war, let alone negotiate peace.
Second, it is not clear whether Russia would believe that the United States and its European allies would fight on Kiev’s behalf even if Ukraine joined NATO. Western countries have repeatedly chosen not to do so over the past two years, and the United States has gone so far as to restrict American weapons from being used to attack mainland Russia. If NATO is not willing to fight a nuclear-armed Russia to protect Ukraine now, why would the alliance intend to do so in the future?
Rather than continue to tease Ukraine as a phantom NATO member at some uncertain point in the future, the alliance should be honest with Ukraine. We support you, but the costs of full membership simply exceed the benefits.
Daniel R. DePetris, Washington
The author is a fellow at Defense Priorities.