Follow us on social

Zelensky-nato

Zelensky's NATO bid falls flat

The reaction to his application for accelerated membership was muted, exposing the limits of the West's military involvement in this war.

Analysis | Europe

On September 30, in the tailwind of Russia’s announcement that Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia would be annexed by Russia, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky issued a renewed plea for Ukrainian membership in NATO. 

The Ukrainian president made his case for membership by pointing out that “de facto, we have already made our way to NATO.” With that statement, he lifted up Russia’s claim that it is “now in a direct war with the U.S.” or, as Putin said on September 21, that Russia is fighting "the entire Western military machine."

In other words, Zelensky’s request has further fed into Russian fears that Ukraine has already become a Western vassal. For Ukraine and its allies, it also highlighted, once again, that Kyiv is not a member of NATO. And, judging by the muted response from NATO leaders, that’s not going to change anytime soon.

Take NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who repeated that the door is open to all European countries before slamming the door shut again by saying that “our focus now is on providing immediate support to Ukraine to help Ukraine defend itself against Russia’s brutal invasion.”

If that wasn’t enough, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan then pretty much locked the door, saying Ukraine’s application “should be taken up at a different time.”

This is a reminder to the people of Ukraine — the people who are directly suffering the horrors of this war — that the U.S. and its NATO allies are more than happy to send weapons to Ukrainian soldiers but remain unwilling to send their own men and women to fight.

Biden has repeatedly insisted that the U.S. “will not fight the third world war in Ukraine,” hence the  immediate reason NATO won’t entertain Zelensky’s entreaties: Article 5 could be triggered immediately in the face of continued Russian aggression against the defenses, infrastructure, and populace in Ukraine.

But, due in part to years of confused policy toward Ukraine, NATO is on that precipice today. Now that the eastern region of Ukraine has, in Russia’s eyes, joined Crimea as part of Russia, Russian officials have warned that they will regard an assault on that region as an assault on Russia — an assault that justifies the “use of all weapon systems available to us,” in the words of Vladimir Putin. And that would start the very World War III that closing the NATO door to Ukraine is meant to avoid.

The only way out is diplomacy and a negotiated settlement. Unfortunately, that way out has now been complicated by another statement from Zelensky. Following his application for accelerated ascension to NATO, the Ukrainian president invoked a decree banning negotiating with Putin. The decree “acknowledge[s] the impossibility of holding negotiations with President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin.” Zelensky added in a video address that “we are ready for dialogue with Russia, but with another president of Russia,” effectively ruling out peace talks.

Russia, which has also at times refused to talk, says it will talk if Zelensky changes his mind. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said,“we’ll now be waiting for the current president to change his stance or for the arrival of the future president of Ukraine.”

That Ukraine and Russia see Ukraine as a de facto member of NATO and that NATO still refuses entry to Ukraine highlight both the dangerous peak the war has reached and the firm limits to NATO’s willingness to become involved in the war. This makes the need for a negotiated settlement more critical. There is an urgency for the U.S. to finally begin to talk to Russia, to urge Zelensky to reconsider the decree, to finally return to the last promising point of departure — April’s talks in Istanbul — and restart diplomatic talks that could finally end this horrific conflict.


President Volodymyr Zelenskyy makes statement about NATO application for membership on Sept. 30 (Office of President of Ukraine website)
Analysis | Europe
Venezuela oil
Top photo credit: man rides a bicycle next to the "Oilworkers" statue, in Caracas, Venezuela, December 2, 2022. REUTERS/Gaby Oraa

US non-profits 'in the tank' for Exxon, Chevron over Venezuela oil

Washington Politics

On Friday, as three U.S. destroyers headed towards waters off of Venezuela and President Nicolás Maduro mobilized 4.5 million militiamen in response, Secretary of State Marco Rubio posted a one-word tweet: “#Guyana.”

The post included a screenshot of a statement from the Guyanese government, which echoed concerns from Washington about Venezuelan transnational organized crime, all but offering support for the military escalation. Those concerns are based on the debunked assertion that Maduro is the head of the “Cartel of the Suns,” using drugs and gang violence as a weapon of war against the U.S.

keep readingShow less
Philippines navy south china sea
Top photo credit: Philippine Navy personnel salute an Indian Navy vessel in the South China Sea, off the west coast of the Philippines, on Aug. 4, 2025, during their first naval exercise with India, a two-day event that started the previous day (Kyodo via Reuters Connect)

US stirring up more trouble in China-Philippines naval clash

Asia-Pacific

After calming down a little during the early part of this year, the South China Sea is on the boil again. Two serious incidents have brought home the fact that the situation is becoming critical, and a Philippines-China military crisis could happen anytime, potentially pulling the United States in.

On August 11, two Chinese vessels, one of which was a Chinese navy craft, collided while chasing a Philippine ship off Scarborough Shoal. The collision was serious, and several Chinese coast guard personnel possibly died in the collision. Any Chinese deaths would mark the first loss of life in the China-Philippine tussles in years.

keep readingShow less
Al Jazeera Atlantic Council
Top image credit: www.youtube.com/@aljazeeraenglish

Think tank staffer stumped when asked about arms industry funding

Military Industrial Complex

In a new Al Jazeera docuseries called the Business of War, the Atlantic Council’s Mark Massa was left speechless in response to a question from journalist Hind Hassan about the think tank’s funding from weapons manufacturers. Massa, whose think tank accepted at least $10 million from Pentagon contractors in the past five years, paused for a revealing ten full seconds before stumbling through a non-answer.

“There have been some other think tanks and other organizations that have done an analysis of the recommendations that have been given by the Atlantic Council, and they found that it tends to benefit those same weapons companies that are also providing a lot of money towards the Atlantic Council,” Hassan said, adding, “How do you respond to that?”

keep readingShow less

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.