Follow us on social

google cta
Volodymyr_zelensky_2019_presidential_inauguration_05

Amid tensions with Russia, Ukraine says it wants into NATO

It won't happen because that would mean the Atlantic alliance would have to mobilize for war.

Europe
google cta
google cta

After meeting with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg on Tuesday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said that Ukraine hopes to be invited this year to join a NATO Membership Action Plan. In his words: "NATO is the only way to end the war in Donbass. Ukraine's MAP will be a real signal for Russia."

Stoltenberg did not reply directly to this request, but repeated, in a tweet, the usual NATO line about supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression. The Biden administration on the other hand, is essentially trying to shelve the issue. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said the administration has been discussing Ukraine's membership aspirations with Kiev however, "we are strong supporters of them, we are engaged with them… but that is a decision for NATO to make." 

Shelving the issue of NATO membership for Ukraine (and Georgia) is good. Abandoning it would be even better. For what after all do Zelensky’s words about the Donbas really mean? He is suggesting that NATO, with Ukraine as a member, would threaten to go to war with Russia in order to force Russia to abandon the Donbas. And not just that: NATO would have to try to force Russia to give up the annexation of Crimea and abandon its naval base at Sevastopol and its entire strategic position in the Black Sea. 

Not likely. 

If NATO, with Ukraine as a member, really adopted such a strategy, this would mean planning for war with Russia. The whole of U.S. global strategy, military deployment and military spending would have to be redirected to this end. The containment of China would be abandoned. The U.S. Navy would be drastically downgraded, and the Army would be recreated as the massive armored force of the Cold War. NATO’s European members would have to vastly increase their military spending and reintroduce conscription. Western publics would have to be told to accept the risk of nuclear war, and the certainty of massive military casualties, for a Ukrainian Donbas and Crimea.

Of course, none of this is going to happen — and Moscow knows it perfectly well. The only result of threatening Russia in this way would be to make NATO look ridiculous.

Instead of thinking about such hard military realities, NATO since the 1990s has befuddled itself with warm and woolly mantras about “spreading democracy” and “enhancing security,” and “supporting this or that country’s European Vocation.” NATO secretaries-general have been retired politicians from countries that have not thought seriously about war for a century or more, and are culturally allergic to thinking about it. But if NATO takes in Ukraine as a member, then NATO is going to have to think seriously about war.


Volodymyr Zelensky. Photo credit: Mykhaylo Markiv / The Presidential Administration of Ukraine via WikiMedia Commons
google cta
Europe
Tony Blair Gaza
Top photo credit: Britain's former Prime Minister Tony Blair attends a world leaders' summit on ending the Gaza war, amid a U.S.-brokered prisoner-hostage swap and ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas, in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, October 13, 2025. REUTERS/Suzanne Plunkett/Pool/File Photo

Phase farce: No way 'Board of Peace' replaces reality in Gaza

Middle East

The Trump administration’s announcements about the Gaza Strip would lead one to believe that implementation of President Trump’s 20-point peace plan, later largely incorporated into a United Nations Security Council resolution, is progressing quite smoothly.

As such, Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff announced this month on social media the “launch of Phase Two” of the plan, “moving from ceasefire to demilitarization, technocratic governance, and reconstruction.” But examination of even just a couple of Witkoff’s assertions in his announcement shows that "smooth" or even "implementation" are bitter overstatements.

keep readingShow less
Trump Polk
Top image credit: Samuele Wikipediano 1348 via wikimedia commons/lev radin via shutterstock.com

On Greenland, Trump wants to be like Polk

Washington Politics

Any hopes that Wednesday’s meeting of Greenland and Denmark’s foreign ministers with Vice President Vance and Secretary Rubio might point toward an end of the Trump administration’s attempts to annex the semiautonomous arctic territory were swiftly disappointed. “Fundamental disagreement” remains, according to Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen.

That these talks would yield no hint of a resolution should not be surprising. Much of Trump’s stated rationale for seeking ownership of Greenland — the need for an increased U.S. military presence, the ability to access the island’s critical mineral deposits, or the alleged imperative to keep the Chinese and Russians at bay — is eminently negotiable and even achievable under the status quo. If these were the president’s real goals he likely could have reached an agreement with Denmark months ago. That this standoff persists is a testament to Trump’s true motive: ownership for its own sake.

keep readingShow less
Swedish military Greenland

Top photo credit: HAGSHULT, SWEDEN- 7 MAY 2024: Military guards during the US Army exercise Swift Response 24 at the Hagshult base, Småland county, Sweden, during Tuesday. (Shutterstock/Sunshine Seeds)

Trump digs in as Europe sends troops to Greenland

Europe

Wednesday’s talks between American, Danish, and Greenlandic officials exposed the unbridgeable gulf between President Trump’s territorial ambitions and respect for sovereignty.

Trump now claims the U.S. needs Greenland to support the Golden Dome missile defense initiative. Meanwhile, European leaders are sending a small number of troops to Greenland.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.