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
Larijani's killing will destroy Iran war off-ramps for Trump
  • Mostafa Meraji / Wikimedia

Ali Larijani

Larijani's killing will destroy Iran war off-ramps for Trump

QiOSK

Why did Israel target Ali Larijani, and what are the implications if it is confirmed that he was killed? (Update: Iran has confirmed Larijani's killing, hours after Israel's announced that they had killed him in an airstrike).

I see three potential motivations behind the assassination attempt:

keep readingShow less
Senior US official resigns in protest of Iran war
Shutterstock/Ben Von Klemperer

Senior US official resigns in protest of Iran war

QiOSK

The intra-GOP debate over the Iran war has now reached inside the Trump administration, triggering the first senior-level resignation over the conflict.

Joe Kent, a former U.S. Army officer, resigned Tuesday from his position as the director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), saying in a letter that he could no longer “in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran.” Kent focused his blame on “high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media” for leading President Donald Trump down this dangerous path and deceiving him into believing that Iran posed an imminent threat and that a war could be won quickly and easily.

keep readingShow less
Trump bombing US-Arab relations back to the 70s
Top photo credit: OPEC imposed gas shortage, 1973. (National Archives)

Trump bombing US-Arab relations back to the 70s

Middle East

With oil selling for around $100 a barrel and the price in the United States of gasoline at the pump having increased 20% in two weeks, Americans have been thrust back into a 1970s-style mix of oil and insecurity in the Persian Gulf.

The crises of the 1970s began with an oil embargo resulting from Arab anger over heavy U.S. support to Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Then, after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, the United States proclaimed what became known as the Carter Doctrine, with President Jimmy Carter declaring that “vital interests” of the United States were at stake in the Persian Gulf region.

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.