By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Zelenskyy reiterated that NATO membership remains Ukraine’s paramount security guarantee, viewing it as the most cost-effective option for allies and a geopolitical win for President Trump. He highlighted Ukraine’s 800,000-strong military as a significant asset to NATO, especially if troop withdrawals occur. While acknowledging a developing French proposal for European forces in Ukraine, Zelenskyy emphasized that this initiative, though beneficial, cannot serve as the sole security guarantee and requires clarification on command structure and deployment details. He stressed that any agreement with Russia without robust allied security guarantees would merely postpone future aggression.
Read the original article here
Zelenskyy’s assertion that Ukraine’s 800,000-strong army would be a significant asset to NATO is undeniably compelling. This force isn’t just a large number; it represents a highly skilled and experienced fighting force. These soldiers are veterans of numerous high-intensity conflicts, possessing invaluable expertise in modern warfare.
Their experience extends beyond conventional combat. They’re pioneers in the utilization of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), employing them for reconnaissance, carrying payloads, and executing both tactical and strategic one-way attacks. The Ukrainian military has also demonstrated mastery in coordinating diverse equipment from a multitude of nations, maintaining a complex and efficient supply chain to support their operations.
This level of competence makes them arguably the world’s best in several crucial areas of modern military operations. Their proven abilities would be an undeniable boon to any defensive alliance. The strategic advantages they offer are simply too significant to ignore. Their inclusion would immediately bolster NATO’s capabilities.
However, the path to NATO membership isn’t straightforward. Political obstacles, notably opposition from certain leaders like Orbán and Putin, present significant challenges. These geopolitical complexities highlight the need for alternative approaches to ensuring regional stability.
The immediate post-war period will likely find Ukraine unprepared for the level of military and intelligence integration characteristic of existing NATO members. Nevertheless, providing credible security guarantees to nations aligning with the West – Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Moldova, and others – is vital for maintaining stability in Europe. Their inclusion in NATO would also serve as a powerful deterrent to future aggression.
In this context, it is worth considering the idea of alternative security pacts – a “NATO Light”, if you will. This could function as a stepping stone for integrating countries such as Ukraine, gradually building trust and integrating them into the wider defense framework. This could be a viable temporary solution that paves the way for full membership once the geopolitical climate improves.
The fact that Ukraine is the only nation to have fought a symmetric war against Russia makes it an unparalleled resource for any military alliance. Its experience, particularly in drone warfare, would be invaluable for training and consultation purposes. Considering this, turning away this well-equipped and battle-hardened army seems illogical.
Concerns about the long-term stability of Ukraine’s army are valid. Questions regarding troop retention, the age of the soldiers, and the possibility of internal strife are important considerations. The potential for desertions after the war ends is real. The realities of maintaining a large, well-trained army after such extensive conflicts are also not to be overlooked.
Despite these reservations, the benefits of incorporating Ukraine’s military expertise into NATO are substantial. The possibility of the US withdrawing from NATO, or a similar event involving other major European powers, underscores the need for alternative strategies to ensure regional security. Forcing a partnership between individual countries, circumventing the NATO framework, would necessitate enormous political will and strategic planning.
Ultimately, the debate about Ukraine’s NATO membership is not just about numbers; it’s about strategic advantage, geopolitical stability, and the invaluable lessons learned from a nation that has bravely defended itself and Europe from Russian aggression. The potential contribution of Ukraine’s military would represent a significant boost to NATO’s capabilities, far outweighing the potential challenges. The question of integration and the need for alternative security agreements are crucial aspects that must be considered alongside Ukraine’s undeniable military strength. Finding solutions that address both the short-term and long-term perspectives is a task of vital importance.