The Case for Ukraine’s NATO Membership
Why NATO Matters
Any argument for Ukraine joining NATO has to start with an argument for NATO itself.
NATO did not start solely as an anti-Soviet alliance. It was also an anti-German alliance. Lord Ismay, the first Secretary General of NATO, stated bluntly that the purpose of NATO was to “Keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down”. NATO was, among other things, a tool to make Germany normal. NATO was an institution that could restrain Germany and more importantly, it could guarantee its security, removing Germany’s incentive to re-militarize and intimidate its neighbors in the future.
This point on pacifying Germany gained a new urgency when West Germany annexed East Germany at the end of the Cold War. A reunified Germany could pose a military threat to the rest of Europe and even pursue nuclear weapons, and this possibility weighed especially heavy on the Russians and French.
The French pursued greater economic integration with the new Germany to bind it to the rest of Europe and to create supra-national institutions to manage it that France would have influence over. The Maastricht Treaty would be signed shortly after German unification, creating the European Union.
Though we are constantly reminded of James Baker’s commitment to Gorbachev that NATO would not expand further east, it is not explained enough that this commitment was made in the context German unification, and that Gorbachev initially did not want a united Germany in NATO. Baker and others persuaded him that an independent Germany would likely be a greater threat to Russia. It might look to secure strategic resources by threatening other states, or expand its borders to more defensible geography, and it might pursue nuclear weapons to guarantee its existence.
In other words, it might come to resemble the pre-NATO Germany. Or it might even resemble the present Russian state under Putin, but with a much larger and more sophisticated economy.
An untethered Germany could be potentially dangerous in the future, but one integrated into Europe’s economy and NATO was predictable and less likely to militarize since it didn’t have to fear its immediate neighbors. It also didn’t need a Lebensraum to guarantee access to resources if it were part of a larger common market.
Germany’s post-Cold War pacifism is actually a sign that the alliance is working. European governments voluntarily disarming because they don’t feel threatened by one another was part of the idea; not the main idea initially, but not an unimportant one. We should marvel at the close security coordination between European countries and populations which for most of the last thousand years have been bludgeoning each other into powder.
As we speak, former members of the Axis, Allies, Warsaw Pact, and Soviet Union are coordinating security strategy with each other and not against one another. If we take a moment to glance back at European history, it should be clear that the key contribution of the NATO alliance to human security lies primarily in the influence it has on its members and how they relate to one another.
It is sometimes said in an orientalist and dismissive tone, normally of Middle-Eastern populations, that “those people” have been at war “for centuries”. As far as I can tell, the one continent where the “centuries-old” conflict stereotype fits most neatly is Europe. Some of the highlights of this barbarism include: The Hundred Years’ War, the 30 Years’ War, the 7 Years’ War, the Napoleonic Wars, the War of Spanish Succession, and the two World Wars. The conflicts were so frequent, so long, and so fought for utterly nothing that many are named merely for their length.
This atmosphere of nationalism and militarism also incentivized colonization. Europeans plundered the Americas, Africa, and Asia for kidnapped labor and stolen resources, not just to create larger and more predictable markets but also to be more competitive with other powers. A large empire with varied and abundant resources would not require trade dependencies to acquire the material it needed to wage war.
Some states like the UK created a massive maritime empire to pursue this end, while others such as Napoleon and Hitler streaked across the continent to create a land based empire that would be immune to external blockade. The incentives of European states to centralize, militarize, and colonize kept Europe in a cycle of near permanent war with either its neighbors or its non-European subjects, and often both.
The US security “umbrella” created after WWII, as well as the threat of the Soviet Union broke Western Europe out of this cycle. It also created the security conditions necessary for these states to integrate economically, a policy deliberately pushed by the United States. European economic integration, not by coincidence, began with two key strategic resources that had been fought intensely over: coal and steel in the European Coal and Steel Community.
NATO is by no means perfect, or even a miracle. France still maintains a large overseas empire, and it has been almost completely unable to restrain its foremost member, the United States, from unilateral action. Hungary, Turkey, and Poland have all regressed in terms of democratic governance in recent years. Turkey and Greece nearly went to war over Cyprus while both were members of NATO.
One does not have to worship NATO to simply recognize that the world was significantly more dangerous prior to its creation. Any human institution is going to have its “problems”.
My argument should therefore be understood in the relative terms of probability, tendency, and incentive, and not as a scientific law with gravity-like certainty.
Why Russia is Actually Fighting in Ukraine
I think Americans are flattering themselves when they wonder why Putin did not invade Ukraine during the presidency of Donald Trump. If we consider that Russia first invaded in 2014 after the Maidan Revolution, and is trying to assassinate President Zelensky himself, it should be clear that Ukrainian leadership is the main driver of Russian aggression, not American leadership. (Also Russia was drilling for this invasion during the Trump presidency, though evidently not sufficiently.)
Russia’s need to control Ukrainian political leadership and to prevent its alignment with NATO and the EU is normally understood through the lens of Russian state security: an unreliable Ukraine might host or join hostile forces that would have a geographical head start that was unavailable to Napoleon and Hitler, negating Russia’s defense-in-depth, and threatening the existence of the Russian state.
This argument should be met with skepticism. Russia today, unlike in the 1812 and 1941, possesses nuclear weapons, including smaller non-strategic nuclear weapons which could be deployed on amassing armies and navies without inflicting major damage on itself, and possibly without even inciting nuclear retaliation. Russia could also threaten the use of non-strategic nukes while invading forces were building up around it, discouraging their assembly in the first place.
Russia’s stockpile ought to be enough to refute talk about the Northern European Plain or the Volgograd Gap.
The US could intervene kinetically in Ukraine if it wanted to. The US aircraft carrier currently in the Aegean is in range for US bombers to fly to Kiev and back, with hundreds of miles of range to spare. Their reluctance to intervene directly in Ukraine is not merely because Ukraine is not a member of NATO, since the United States has intervened to protect non-NATO states and pseudo-states before, most notably Kuwait.
It also isn’t because they are nervous about Russia’s conventional capacity, because if they haven’t subdued Ukraine by now, they won’t be able to defend against US carrier based aircraft.
The United States won’t intervene directly in Ukraine for the same reason Russia’s paranoia about a Ukraine-based invasion is absurd: Russia’s nuclear deterrent.
Russia’s need to control Ukraine’s political orientation should instead be understood through the lens of regime security. The Russian state can and will survive Ukraine’s integration with the “West”, but its model and governing elite might not.
While western pundits and “experts” are moping about how NATO has been so mean and provocative to Russia by allowing their former satellites to voluntarily join, we should probably recall that Putin’s Russia is actually provoked to violence by a number of other things.
Elections provoke Putin. Feminists provoke Putin. Opposition parties provoke Putin. Protests provoke Putin. Ukraine being a functional and prosperous democracy provokes Putin.
It seems like we are going to have to give up a lot if the never-provoke-Putin “realists” are going to have their way.
A Ukraine in NATO would almost certainly join the EU also. As a candidate member of the EU, they would be required to reduce corruption and the power of their oligarchs.
They would be able to freely export their massive supply of grain and hydrocarbons to the world’s largest market, and to move and work in any EU country they please, and those EU states would benefit from a reliable supplier of calories and fuel. Ukraine would also gain the benefit of the European legal system, Common Agricultural Policy, independent courts, European universities, European transit infrastructure, and European investment.
The threat to Russia from Ukraine isn’t that NATO will penetrate deep into Russia in a Barbarossa-style invasion of conventional arms. The threat is that Russians will see a large successful multi-ethnic democracy in the EU’s common market and NATO’s security alliance on their border.
Arguing that NATO unreasonably provoked Russia is absurd on its face. Neutral countries are free to join the CSTO if they consider NATO a threat, but instead Sweden and Finland are debating joining NATO in response to Russian aggression.
More to the point, what would Russia’s relationship with Ukraine be if NATO membership were not at stake? Governments based in Moscow have tried to dominate the territory of Ukraine long before NATO was even conceived of. Are we really to believe that Moscow would have no interest in dominating Ukraine if NATO were smaller or non-existent?
If you believe that NATO unnecessarily provoked Russia by considering Ukrainian membership (and “considering” is likely overstating it), you effectively believe that autocratic Moscow elites have a right to control the territory of Ukraine and its population that supersedes any countervailing right that Ukrainians have to do the same.
Why Ukraine Would Benefit from Joining NATO
The only way Ukraine can be a functional democracy at this point is as a member of NATO. If Russia’s invasion is successful, they will have an indefinite veto on all Ukraine’s foreign affairs and elections.
A battered but victorious Ukraine that remains outside NATO can be a problem on its own. If Ukraine successfully repels Russia, and forces a lasting ceasefire, but is denied NATO membership, it will have to blaze its own trail.
Ukraine may seek to acquire nuclear weapons, like the ones they voluntarily surrendered on condition that nothing like this invasion would ever happen. Ukraine would have to centralize authority to maintain a large standing army to deter a future Russian invasion. This centralization and militarization, if history is any guide, will likely entail rabid nationalist propaganda to lower the costs of mobilization to the state, and this nationalism would lend itself nicely to far-right factions in Ukraine gaining more influence.
The violence in Ukraine since 2014 has already given unproductive credibility and experience to far-right maniacs and thugs. Ukraine has also shown signs of increasing chauvinism, especially as it relates to the language rights of its Russian-speaking population.
If you are concerned about the far-right in Ukraine (and I am) the best thing Ukraine can do to limit their influence is to join NATO and the EU. Being under attack, as Ukraine is, creates an atmosphere that provides credibility and political opportunities for ultranationalist militias fighting against Russian troops.
Joining the EU and NATO would not necessarily eradicate fascism in Ukraine, or any other country for that matter, but it would reduce their influence by placing Ukraine into a wider security network and commercial setting dominated by democracies in which its economic and security needs can be met. It would also be in a legal framework and court system that would be hostile to its laws restricting Russian language use and instruction.
In order to believe that NATO and EU membership would be good for Ukrainian society, one only need believe that fascists have a harder time coming to power in a country that is a member of NATO and the EU than under Russian bombardment.
As much as I am not impressed by the attempts of Putin apologists to characterize the entire Ukrainian military as a fascist force, I don’t think it is helpful to mitigate the role of Azov and others. Opposing Ukraine’s occupation and invasion does not require us to make excuses for them.
Why NATO Would Benefit from Ukrainian Membership
NATO stands to gain considerably if Ukraine manages to repel the Russians and later joins NATO. It would be gaining a large member that has proven it can fight a modern military and effectively use many of the same weapon systems that NATO uses.
There can be little doubt that Ukraine could contribute to the alliance in terms of quantity and quality.
NATO security would also allow Ukraine to continue to export its massive grain production to a hungry world without interference. If this war continues for much longer, grain exports to food-deficit countries will be compromised which will lead to increasing food prices and potential violence. Much has been written about this risk in the case of Egypt especially, and Egypt has already banned the export of wheat.
Ukraine’s calorie exports will be stabilized and secured in NATO and the EU, and contribute to the predictability of food supplies and prices. Without NATO membership, the threat of a Russian invasion or Russian interference with these exports would hang over our heads indefinitely.
It is in NATO’s interest to do everything it can to help Ukraine repel the invasion, and the sooner the better. Talk of Ukraine becoming “another Afghanistan” is normally Russia focused. Ukraine would undoubtedly be the victim of becoming “another Afghanistan”, not Russia. A drawn out war and insurgency would torture the civilian population, demolish their economic output, empower ultranationalists, displace millions, and undo all the real political progress that has been made in Ukraine.
NATO needs to move to end Russia’s invasion and occupation on a timescale of months, not years (and preferably weeks). Its members then need to get it on track to join the EU, and help it to rebuild from all the damage Russia has caused with a Marshall Plan style aid package that incentivizes diversifying its economy, recognizing minority language rights, and demobilizing far-right armed groups.
Admitting Ukraine might require it to forfeit the Crimea and other territories. NATO should try to minimize this loss as much as possible, but an amputated Ukraine in western institutions is highly preferable than any likely alternative, provided Ukraine consented to such an arrangement.
The longer this war carries on, the more the people involved will suffer, and the more we will all have to pay down the road.
The more people who are displaced, the more Ukraine’s neighbors will have to adjust to accommodate them. The more civilians that are attacked, the more Ukrainians will suffer from PTSD and other lasting injuries, and the more illiberal their politics will tend to become. The more Ukrainians lives are put on hold, or outright ended, the harder it will be for Ukraine to move forward, in any direction.
Ukraine’s sowing season is about to begin, and if they remain under attack global food production will suffer for it. This is not a mere local conflict. Even if you lacked human empathy, if you eat food, you are involved.
NATO needs to supply Ukraine with the weapons and intelligence it needs to repel Russia, and retake lost territory. This will likely require the supply of warplanes, and providing real-time intelligence on Russian positions to Ukrainian pilots and artillery. NATO members should consider infiltrating “foreign legion” units with personnel who can provide any expertise needed for a counterattack.
These proposals are put forward as a minimum suggestion. Any proposal short of this either dooms Ukraine to being a permanent Russian colony or a levelled society annihilated by civil war and insurgency, or both.
Sanctions are a useful tool, but they do not act quickly enough, and if left in place indefinitely will have disproportionate impact on Russian civilians, many of whom are protesting this outrageous war. They should all come with “sunset” clauses fixed to time, or preferably, milestones, so that when/if Russia withdraws, the sanctions are automatically removed.
But sanctions will not remove Russia’s military from Ukraine in an acceptable amount of time. If it takes us five years to win, we lose.
This is not a “wait and see” situation. Months, not years. Or not at all.
Conclusion
Russia’s invasion is a pre-emptive war by a kleptocratic elite to protect itself from the threat of a prosperous and democratic neighbor. This threat is social and political, not kinetic. This threat is to the Russian elite itself, and not to the Russian state, and certainly not to the Russian people.
There is therefore no claim Russia can make to justify its invasion that we are bound to respect, even among those that make sense.
