Follow us on social

google cta
45957418025_e1529963bf_k

NATO again dangles membership in front of Ukraine

Again doubling down on the 'open door' mantra, why does the alliance continue to send the wrong signals to Kyiv?

Analysis | Europe
google cta
google cta

NATO ministers today doubled down on their "open-door" policy to Ukraine, with NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg saying Russia would not deter NATO expansion.

“President Putin cannot deny sovereign nations to make their own sovereign decisions that are not a threat to Russia,” the former Norwegian prime minister said. “I think what he’s afraid of is democracy and freedom, and that’s the main challenge for him.”

He recalled that North Macedonia and Montenegro had recently joined NATO and predicted that Russian President Vladimir Putin “will get Finland and Sweden as NATO members” soon.

A provocative choice of words, as Stoltenberg and NATO officials and the greater foreign policy establishment have long tried to play down the role that NATO expansion has played over the last 30 years in the deterioration of the West-Russia relationship, as well as Moscow's illegal invasion of Ukraine in February.

Others disagree, of course. "NATO expansion was the most profound strategic blunder made since the end of the Cold War," Jack Matlock, former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union, wrote bluntly for RS in February.

Nevertheless, it is widely known that NATO had no intention of approving Ukraine's membership before Russia's invasion, but the U.S. never offered that assurance to Russia; nor did it dissuade Kyiv of the notion. NATO continues to dangle the prospect to the Ukrainians, however, who have been devastated not only by the military invasion but also by a staggering economic crisis, massive displacement and emigration, and indefinite dependence on NATO member states to stay afloat.

Yet when he applied for an accelerated welcome into that "open door" this fall, President Zelensky's request landed with a thud.

NATO ministers absolutely want to send Putin a message about NATO — it will expand wherever and whenever it wishes. But are they sending the wrong signals to Ukraine? Some say NATO has been doing this all along, dating back to the first time President George W. Bush announced the open door to Ukraine and Georgia during the NATO Bucharest meeting in 2008.

"NATO has repeated the formulation at every summit and ministerial meeting, and, until just before Putin’s 2022 invasion, top leaders of the Biden administration were still harping on NATO’s 'open door' to Ukraine’s membership, even though it is a fantasy," former U.S. Ambassador to NATO Robert Hunter wrote for in March. He continued:

Indeed, the “will become members” statement, repeated over and over, created a political and moral commitment to Ukraine (and to Georgia), raising legitimate expectations but with no honest intention of fulfilling them, while providing no deterrence of possible (now actual) Russian aggression: for these two countries the worst of all worlds.

By extension, the failure of NATO, especially its leader, the United States, at least so far to honor the full meaning of the “will become members” pledge is creating a deep crisis of credibility for both NATO and the U.S.

Hunter wrote that eight months ago, mind you. And yet, the open door pledge is reaffirmed like an incantation once again. Perhaps the alliance sees it as a pox on Russia, but, by never backing it up with real intention while Ukrainians fight for their lives in a hot war, might it be a curse — in a very thin disguise — on Ukraine too?


NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg (NATO/Flickr/Creative Commons)
google cta
Analysis | Europe
Why SCOTUS won’t deter Trump’s desire to weaponize trade
Top image credit: U.S. President Donald Trump talks to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts on the day of his speech to a joint session of Congress, in the House Chamber of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., March 4, 2025. (REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque)

Why SCOTUS won’t deter Trump’s desire to weaponize trade

QiOSK

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court today ruled against the White House on a key economic initiative of the Trump administration, concluding that the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA) does not give the president the right to impose tariffs.

The ruling was not really a surprise; the tone of the questioning by several justices in early November was overwhelmingly skeptical of the administration’s argument, as prediction markets rightly concluded. Given the likelihood of this result, it should also come as no surprise that the Trump administration has already been plotting ways to work around the decision.

keep readingShow less
Trump Iran
Top image credit: Lucas Parker and FotoField via shutterstock.com

No, even a 'small attack' on Iran will lead to war

QiOSK

The Wall Street Journal reports that President Donald Trump is considering a small attack to force Iran to agree to his nuclear deal, and if Tehran refuses, escalate the attacks until Iran either agrees or the regime falls.

Here’s why this won’t work.

keep readingShow less
As Iran strikes loom, US and UK fight over Indian Ocean base
TOP IMAGE CREDIT: An aerial view of Diego Garcia, the Chagossian Island home to one of the U.S. military's 750 worldwide bases. The UK handed sovereignty of the islands back to Mauritius, with the stipulation that the U.S. must be allowed to continue its base's operation on Diego Garcia for the next 99 years. (Kev1ar82 / Shutterstock.com).

As Iran strikes loom, US and UK fight over Indian Ocean base

QiOSK

As the U.S. surges troops to the Middle East, a battle is brewing over a strategically significant American base in the middle of the Indian Ocean.

President Donald Trump announced Wednesday that he would oppose any effort to return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, arguing that a U.S. base on the island of Diego Garcia may be necessary to “eradicate a potential attack by a highly unstable and dangerous [Iranian] Regime.” The comment came just a day after the State Department reiterated its support for the U.K.’s decision to give up sovereignty over the islands while maintaining a 99-year lease for the base.

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.