By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following meetings with EU leaders in Kyiv, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky emphasized the critical need for a NATO invitation. He asserted that such an invitation is essential to Ukraine’s survival in its ongoing conflict with Russia. This statement underscores the significance of NATO membership for Ukraine’s security and defense against continued Russian aggression. The request highlights the urgency of the situation and the perceived necessity of alliance support for continued Ukrainian resistance.
Read the original article here
Ukraine’s President Zelensky has made it abundantly clear: a formal invitation to join NATO is not just a desirable outcome, but a critical necessity for Ukraine’s very survival. The stark reality, as he sees it, is that without the protective umbrella of NATO membership, Ukraine is left vulnerable to future Russian aggression. Empty promises, however well-intentioned, are simply insufficient to deter a determined adversary like Russia.
The underlying concern is the chilling certainty that without the backing of a powerful military alliance like NATO, Russia will inevitably attempt another invasion. This isn’t a prediction based on speculation; it’s a sober assessment of Russia’s past actions and stated intentions. The cycle of invasion, international condemnation, and limited response must be broken, and a firm commitment to Ukraine’s defense is the only viable solution. To continue down the current path is simply to invite another headline with the same tragic story, only with a different date.
A crucial element of this argument is the belief that the current approach of offering only assurances, without a tangible commitment to military intervention, is failing. The mere possibility of a Russian invasion should be sufficient to compel a decisive response from Western powers. The question isn’t about the morality of supporting Ukraine, but rather the pragmatic need to prevent a potentially catastrophic war. Delaying or obfuscating the issue of NATO membership only emboldens Russia and prolongs the suffering of the Ukrainian people.
The potential for a veto from a NATO member, such as Hungary, is a significant obstacle, but one that needs to be overcome. Appeasement, history shows, rarely works in the long term, and simply delaying a decision on Ukraine’s NATO candidacy allows Russia to continue its aggressive actions without significant consequences. While alternatives exist, such as bilateral agreements similar to the US-South Korea model, or providing Ukraine with a massive influx of advanced weaponry, these options rely heavily on consistent political will, a resource that has proven scarce in the past.
The concern over the effectiveness of bilateral agreements is palpable. The Budapest Memorandum, a prime example, demonstrated the limitations of such agreements in the face of a determined aggressor. The lack of immediate, robust military intervention following the initial Russian invasion serves as a stark reminder that paper agreements are insufficient to deter powerful states with expansionist ambitions. Such agreements are certainly an element of a broader strategy, but they do not represent a sufficient substitute for the protective collective security offered by NATO membership.
Consequently, equivalent security guarantees from a coalition of Western nations, committing to boots on the ground in the event of a future Russian attack, appear as a more plausible alternative. Such a commitment, involving multiple countries, would be less susceptible to changes in domestic politics within any single nation. This collaborative approach could offer Ukraine the level of protection it needs while dispersing the burden of responsibility amongst allies.
Crucially, offering hope of NATO membership is a key component of the Ukrainian government’s war effort. Maintaining morale amongst troops and civilians is essential for sustaining the fight. The constant barrage of bad news – frontline losses, shortages of supplies, and the destruction of critical infrastructure – necessitates a counterbalance of hope and reassurance. The promise of NATO membership provides this vital element, boosting morale and consolidating resolve within Ukraine. Delaying or denying this crucial support would be a grave mistake. Therefore, the argument concludes that while other options exist, the urgent need for Ukraine’s survival necessitates a prompt invitation to join NATO.