Follow us on social

google cta
Diplomacy Watch: Roiling disagreements over Ukraine path at NATO

Diplomacy Watch: Roiling disagreements over Ukraine path at NATO

The question of membership — for Ukraine, as well as Sweden — is a ‘consuming debate’ among US and European partners.

Europe
google cta
google cta

The next NATO summit will be held next month in Vilnius, Lithuania. The alliance has so far touted its unity in responding to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but questions over future members are making headlines this week as the conference nears.  

Ukraine reportedly will not receive an official invitation to the alliance while the war is ongoing, but Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has said that he wants “clear” invitations and a pathway to membership this summer, indicating that he would not attend the summit in the absence of such signals. 

According to The New York Times, a number of member states agree with Zelensky, with Eastern European nations in particular pushing for the alliance to commit to inviting Ukraine, and providing Kyiv with a specific timeline and concrete targets to meet in order to be admitted. 

Washington, according to reports, remains unconvinced. 

The Times cites an anonymous U.S. official saying that Ukrainian membership has become a “consuming debate,” both in Europe and inside the Biden administration. Politico reported on Wednesday that the so-called “European Quad” — consisting of the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany — were working to provide Kyiv with a security guarantee that would not amount to a full pathway to NATO membership, which some other members find unsatisfactory. 

“The real security guarantee is provided only by the alliance,” said one European official, according to Politico, “and any temporary arrangements cannot be sold as replacements for full membership, which provides a collective guarantee of countries to each other and which is, I would say, the strongest available guarantee in Europe.”

Elsewhere, disputes over Sweden’s membership could further complicate the upcoming summit. The Hungarian government has stalled approving Sweden’s bid, ostensibly because Stockholm has criticized Budapest’s democratic credentials. In response, Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho), Ranking Member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is taking the rare step of blocking a $735 million U.S. arms sale to Hungary. 

The tension between Hungary and other member states have raised concerns that Budapest could complicate NATO’s response to the war in Ukraine. “Sweden and Finland’s decision to apply for NATO membership has been widely viewed as a blow to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who justified his invasion of Ukraine by underscoring the threat the military alliance poses to his country,” reports the Washington Post. 

“U.S. officials say Putin did not anticipate the West would hold together in support of Ukraine as it has, but they worry that the decision by Hungary and Turkey to delay ratification for Sweden’s bid, which requires the support of all of the alliance’s existing members, risks exposing it as divided and ineffective.” 

In other diplomatic news related to the war in Ukraine:

—Secretary of State Antony Blinken reiterated that the U.S. will continue to maximize its assistance to Ukraine and bolster its defenses for the future, saying that the ongoing counteroffensive was key to Kyiv’s fortunes. Speaking alongside Italian foreign minister Antonio Tajani at a joint press availability, Blinken said “Ukraine’s success in the counter offensive would do two things. It would strengthen its position at any negotiating table that emerges, and it may have the effect as well of actually causing Putin to finally focus on negotiating an end to the war that he started.”  

—Ukrainian officials claimed their first wins from the recently launched counteroffensive on Monday, saying that they had liberated seven villages in the east and south of the country. According to NBC News, “The gains were celebrated on social media. But they are small-scale victories in the early days of what is expected to be a long and difficult effort to drive the Kremlin’s forces out of occupied land across the country's south and east.” 

—The Wall Street Journal reported that the CIA warned Ukraine not to attack the Nord Stream gas pipelines last summer: “The exchange of information began in June, when Dutch military intelligence officials told the CIA that a Ukrainian sabotage team was looking to rent a yacht on the Baltic coastline and use a team of divers to plant explosives along the four pipes of the Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 pipelines.” 

—Nuclear-armed states are expanding and modernizing their arsenals as tensions continue to rise between great powers, according to a new report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. As RS’s Connor Echols wrote on Monday, “Chances for renewed disarmament talks have flagged following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine early last year. Washington and Moscow both took steps recently to reduce their compliance with the New START Treaty — the only agreement capping the number of warheads that each country deploys, which expires in 2026.” 

U.S. State Department news:

During the weekly press briefing on Wednesday, State Department spokesman Matthew Miller addressed China’s peace proposal, in advance of Blinken’s trip to Beijing. 

“With respect to any potential peace proposals, we have also been clear that we welcome the involvement of any country that is willing to help secure a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. China has said that they are interested in pursuing peace, but they’ve also been closely aligned with Russia since the outset of this war. So if China is serious about pursuing a peace that respects Ukraine’s sovereignty, that respects Ukraine’s territorial integrity, of course, that would be important and that would be useful. I’m sure that this will be a matter of conversation during the trip.” 


google cta
Europe
Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?
Top image credit: President Donald J. Trump holds a joint news conference at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Feb. 4, 2025. (Shutterstock/ Joshua Sukoff)

Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?

QiOSK

In the months that led up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration went to extraordinary lengths to convince the world of the need to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Leading officials laid out their case in public, sharing what they claimed was evidence that Iraq was moving rapidly toward the deployment of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. When U.S. tanks rolled across the border, everyone knew the justification: the U.S. was determined to thwart Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction, however fictitious that threat would later prove to be.

In the months that led up to the Iran War, the Trump administration took a different tack. President Trump spoke only occasionally of Iran, offering a smattering of justifications for growing U.S. tensions with the country. He claimed without evidence that Iran was rebuilding its nuclear program after the U.S.-Israeli attack last June and even developing missiles that could strike the United States. But he insisted that Tehran could make a deal with seven magic words: “we will never have a nuclear weapon.”

keep readingShow less
Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports
Top image credit: A large oil tanker transits the Strait of Hormuz. (Shutterstock/ Clare Louise Jackson)

Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports

QiOSK

Hours after the U.S. and Israel launched a campaign of airstrikes across Iran, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is warning vessels in the Persian Gulf via radio that “no ship is allowed to pass the Strait of Hormuz,” according to a report from Reuters.

The news suggests that Iran is ready to pull out all the stops in its response to the U.S.-Israeli barrage, which President Donald Trump says is aimed at toppling the Iranian regime. A full shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz would cause an international crisis given that 20% of the world’s oil passes through the narrow channel. Financial analysts estimate that even one day of a full blockade could cause global oil prices to double from $66 per barrel to more than $120.

keep readingShow less
What Pakistan's 'open war' on Taliban in Afghanistan really means
Top image credit: FILE PHOTO: Afghan Taliban fighters patrol near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border in Spin Boldak, Kandahar Province, following exchanges of fire between Pakistani and Afghan forces in Afghanistan, October 15, 2025. REUTERS/Stringer

What Pakistan's 'open war' on Taliban in Afghanistan really means

QiOSK

Pakistan’s airstrikes on Kabul and Kandahar over the last 24 hours are nothing new. Islamabad has carried out strikes inside Afghanistan several times since the Taliban’s return to power. Pakistan claimed that the Afghan Taliban used drones to conduct strikes in Pakistan.

What distinguishes this latest episode is the rhetorical escalation, with Pakistani officials openly referring to the action as “open war.” While the language grabbed international headlines, it is best understood as part of a managed escalation designed to signal resolve without crossing red lines that would make de-escalation impossible.

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.