By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a statement at the World Economic Forum, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte asserted that Vladimir Putin holds no veto power over NATO expansion, emphasizing that Ukraine’s full membership is crucial for lasting peace. Rutte stressed the need for strong Ukrainian positioning before any negotiations with Russia, advocating against repeating past failures like the Minsk agreements. He further urged continued US weapons support for Ukraine, promising European financial backing. This declaration underscores NATO’s resolve to determine its own membership independently of Russian influence.
Read the original article here
Putin has no right to veto any country’s NATO accession. This is a fundamental principle of national sovereignty. Just as Hitler had no authority to dictate the membership of the Allied Powers, Putin’s objections are illegitimate and carry no legal weight. His attempts to influence the process through proxies or by creating obstacles are equally unacceptable.
The assertion that a non-member nation, such as Russia, should have any say in NATO enlargement is fundamentally flawed. NATO is a defensive alliance, and its membership is determined by the collective will of its existing members, not external actors who seek to undermine its security and purpose. The fact that this needs to be repeatedly emphasized underscores the gravity of the situation and the lengths to which some will go to prevent Ukraine from joining.
The notion that Hungary, a NATO member, can veto Ukraine’s accession is a separate issue entirely. While Hungary does have a right to voice its concerns and influence the decision-making process within the alliance, it has no unilateral veto power. The use of a veto to obstruct the accession of Ukraine is a thinly veiled attempt to further Russia’s agenda, and this sort of obstructionism ultimately undermines the very purpose of NATO and the security of the alliance.
The argument that a country under occupation is ineligible for NATO membership is a complex one. While it’s true that a nation embroiled in conflict might face practical challenges to accession, this should not be interpreted as an absolute bar. NATO’s ability to rapidly respond to aggression would only be strengthened by having Ukraine within the alliance. In addition, a pragmatic approach requires that the alliance find ways to support Ukraine’s aspiration for membership without letting Russia determine the outcome. Simply stating that a country under occupation is ineligible while simultaneously being unwilling to work towards a resolution is simply unacceptable. The issue cannot be used as a justification for delaying or indefinitely blocking the country’s path to membership.
Concerns about Russia’s potential reaction to Ukraine joining NATO are valid, but these concerns should not be allowed to dictate NATO’s policies. The alliance’s core purpose is to deter aggression, and allowing Russia to set the terms of accession would directly contravene that purpose. The collective security of NATO members should come before any attempt to appease a nation that routinely violates international norms and law. Capitulating to such pressure only encourages further aggression and instability.
It’s unrealistic to believe that a single conference could resolve the complex geopolitical issues surrounding Ukraine and Russia. The simple fact that it is even being considered highlights a significant gap between the current approach of appeasement and the decisive action that is clearly needed. While the idea of a united front issuing clear warnings to Putin has merit, it’s a simplistic approach to a multifaceted problem. The need for a strong, unified response is clear, but the path towards achieving it requires more than just strong words. It requires sustained, coordinated action at all levels, coupled with a commitment to supporting Ukraine’s sovereignty and self-determination, even as it may bring risks for the other members of NATO.
The suggestion that Russia will simply wait and take more of Ukraine if Ukraine doesn’t join NATO is a chillingly accurate prediction. This underscores the urgency of allowing Ukraine to join. It’s a preventative measure, not a provocation. NATO’s strategy should focus on deterring future aggression, not simply reacting to it. Ignoring this aspect of Russia’s strategy is, frankly, dangerous and shortsighted. It is vital to act in a way that sends a clear signal that further aggression will face decisive and united countermeasures.
The idea of a “veto” by any nation over another’s right to choose its alliances is a dangerous precedent. The underlying principles of self-determination and national sovereignty must prevail. It is time for a decisive shift away from appeasement and towards a robust defense of those principles, even if it requires facing the harsh realities of a geopolitical landscape dominated by aggressive actors. Only a decisive stance can hope to achieve a just and lasting peace.