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
Will Democrats pop Trump's $50 billion trial balloon for war?
Top image credit: Sens. Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) and Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) sit look on during a congressional hearing in January, 2025. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Sipa USA)

Will Democrats pop Trump's $50 billion trial balloon for war?

Washington Politics

On Wednesday, Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) told CNN that he would support new funding for the U.S. war with Iran — but only if Israel and Arab Gulf states help pay for it.

“We’re using our taxpayer money to protect those countries,” Gallego said. “We’re using our men to protect these countries. They need to throw in and have skin in the game too.”

keep readingShow less
Polymarket Iran War
Top photo credit: Polymarket logo (Shutterstock/PJ McDonald) and Scene following an airstrike on an Iranian police centre damaging residential buildings around it in Niloofar square in central Tehran on march 1, 2026. (Hamid Vakili/Parspix/ABACAPRESS.COM)

Prediction markets are a national security threat

Latest

Hours before an Israeli attack in Tehran killed Ayatollah Khamenei, an account on the prediction market Polymarket made over half a million dollars wagering that Iran’s Supreme Leader would vacate office before 3/31. That account, named “Magamyman,” was not the only one to cash in on the attacks.

Half a dozen Polymarket accounts made over $1.2M betting that the U.S. “strikes Iran by February 28, 2026.” Those accounts were allegedly paid for through cryptocurrency wallets that had previously not been funded prior to Feb. 27. Overall, prediction market users bet over $255M on markets related to the attacks in Iran on the prediction markets Kalshi and Polymarket alone.

keep readingShow less
Indonesia stock exchange
Top photo credit: (Shutterstock/Triawanda Tirta Aditya)

Trump's ‘move fast and break things’ war slams into economy

Middle East

The launch of joint U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran could lead to economic and financial disruptions that ripple across the countries of the Global South with devastating effects. And while a quick end to the war could dampen these effects, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has acknowledged that the war could even last up to 8 weeks, and Israel is now reportedly expecting a "weeks-long" war with Iran.

The fundamental issue here seems to be an increasingly expansive vision of American — and particularly Israeli — war aims. These have now gone well beyond Iran’s offer of substantial denuclearization to regime change, and some quarters have even more extreme visions like the potential Balkanization of Iran into multiple statelets. Such mission creep on the part of the U.S. and Israel has in turn changed incentive structures in Iran towards an expansion of the conflict to target both the Gulf States and global oil markets, a dynamic that threatens to broaden the conflict and extend it, with profound impacts on the global economy.

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.