Follow us on social

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

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)
Analysis | Europe
American Special Operations
Top image credit: (shutterstock/FabrikaSimf)

American cult: Why our special ops need a reset

Military Industrial Complex

This article is the latest installment in our Quincy Institute/Responsible Statecraft project series highlighting the writing and reporting of U.S. military veterans. Click here for more information.

America’s post-9/11 conflicts have left indelible imprints on our society and our military. In some cases, these changes were so gradual that few noticed the change, except as snapshots in time.

keep readingShow less
Recep Tayyip Erdogan Benjamin Netanyahu
Top photo credit: President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Shutterstock/ Mustafa Kirazli) and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Salty View/Shutterstock)
Is Turkey's big break with Israel for real?

Why Israel is now turning its sights on Turkey

Middle East

As the distribution of power shifts in the region, with Iran losing relative power and Israel and Turkey emerging on top, an intensified rivalry between Tel Aviv and Ankara is not a question of if, but how. It is not a question of whether they choose the rivalry, but how they choose to react to it: through confrontation or peaceful management.

As I describe in Treacherous Alliance, a similar situation emerged after the end of the Cold War: The collapse of the Soviet Union dramatically changed the global distribution of power, and the defeat of Saddam's Iraq in the Persian Gulf War reshuffled the regional geopolitical deck. A nascent bipolar regional structure took shape with Iran and Israel emerging as the two main powers with no effective buffer between them (since Iraq had been defeated). The Israelis acted on this first, inverting the strategy that had guided them for the previous decades: The Doctrine of the Periphery. According to this doctrine, Israel would build alliances with the non-Arab states in its periphery (Iran, Turkey, and Ethiopia) to balance the Arab powers in its vicinity (Iraq, Syria, and Egypt, respectively).

keep readingShow less
Havana, Cuba
Top Image Credit: Havana, Cuba, 2019. (CLWphoto/Shutterstock)

Trump lifted sanctions on Syria. Now do Cuba.

North America

President Trump’s new National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) on Cuba, announced on June 30, reaffirms the policy of sanctions and hostility he articulated at the start of his first term in office. In fact, the new NSPM is almost identical to the old one.

The policy’s stated purpose is to “improve human rights, encourage the rule of law, foster free markets and free enterprise, and promote democracy” by restricting financial flows to the Cuban government. It reaffirms Trump’s support for the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, which explicitly requires regime change — that Cuba become a multiparty democracy with a free market economy (among other conditions) before the U.S. embargo will be lifted.

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.