It is clear why Ukraine wants to join NATO, it has a lot to gain, but what would NATO get?
With Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky having unveiled his ‘Victory Plan’ to the world, it is clear that Ukraine’s vision of winning the war hinges on NATO membership. There has been a lot of talk about NATO since Russia invaded, in Ukraine, in Scandinavia, and in the NATO member states themselves. Almost every NATO member premier has publicly waxed poetic about the importance of the alliance, and plenty of former European leaders have publicly endorsed the idea of Ukraine joining the Western alliance. What Ukraine would gain from joining NATO is obvious: it would be a guarantee that Russia could not take more of Ukraine. But the question of what NATO would gain from admitting NATO is rarely discussed, despite being highly relevant.
As it was in the Swedish domestic debate when the question of whether or not to apply to join NATO, most discussions surrounding the alliance is stuck in the Cold War worldview. NATO is the alliance which stands up for freedom against the totalitarian communist project in Eastern Europe so getting countries to join is seen as an inherent good – a moral and ideological good – rather than one option amongst several in how a state could approach security policy. If you view the alliance in that way, as an ideological compact between equals genuinely and wholeheartedly committed to freedom, capitalism, and democracy then getting new members is an unqualified good. If you view it with a bit more nuance as an alliance between states with no common enemy where membership comes with both benefits and responsibilities then the question of whether adding a member is worth it or not depends on the member.
Ukraine’s boosters in NATO justify their support with Ukraine’s practical experience in fighting Russia. In their telling no country in the world (except presumably Russia) has the same experience in fighting a state on state land war which means that it has lots of lessons learned to pass on to NATO. The issues with this idea is that most NATO armies would have little use of the experience Ukraine has gained due to the differences in their primary military threat, geography, and the set up of their military. Defending the plains of eastern Ukraine is very different from defending the mountains of Norway or the forests of Finland. Not to mention that the way Russia fights its war is necessarily very different from how China would wage a war on Taiwan, which is the most credible risk of the US being dragged into war.
The drawbacks to Ukraine joining NATO are real, and especially costly to many of the alliance’s members located far from Russia. I cannot think of a plausible scenario in which Italy, the UK, or Canada ends up in a war with Russia at the moment, can you? That changes if Ukraine is in NATO though. And that is the entire point of NATO, that an attack on one member is an attack on all members which requires a response. It doesn’t matter that it is not in Portugal’s interest to defend Ukraine, it has to by law if Ukraine joins. Obviously, states will not wholeheartedly support NATO operations they don’t have an interest in, but the fact that they automatically become a co-belligerent is significant.
Then there is also the issue of rebuilding the Ukrainian armed forces if it were to join NATO. Allies help each other, and a treaty establishing a formal alliance would put pressure on member states to give Ukraine military aid to replenish their fighting forces, and to establish credible deterrence against a renewed Russian assault. But most members states would likely get more security for their money by spending it on their own militaries, especially bigger and more western states. An open ended commitment to support Ukraine would be a financial black hole; states across Europe and the world have given Ukraine billions and billions of euros and the Ukrainians are still on the back foot. Just imagine how much it would cost to rebuild Ukraine, its military, and its industrial base all of which would be required to make it an effective NATO member.
Finally, I think letting Ukraine join NATO under president Zelensky’s leadership would signal a tacit agreement with his maximalist vision of Ukraine’s war aims. Letting Ukraine join without formally requiring it to drop its goal to recover all the occupied territory, including Crimea, implies to Kyiv that NATO will help it go on the counter-offensive, which few NATO members have the appetite for. But letting Ukraine join after dropping its aims to just hold on to what it still has risks giving cover to the hardline elements in Ukraine. If it gets in over its head trying to get the 1991 borders back, surely NATO will come to the rescue, right?
To their credit, almost no NATO state is currently lobbying for Ukraine to join during the war, and many are reluctant to give an answer to when Ukraine is going to join the alliance. It would be awkward to openly state that Ukraine is not getting into the alliance at the same press conference where you announce the latest weapons package, so it is understandable why leaders tend to not mention specifics on a possible NATO accession for Ukraine. The point of this blog post is to remind you that rhetoric and interests can and often do diverge, and that interests will win out every time. You should not expect Ukraine to join NATO and neither should Zelensky, because ultimately who gets to join is about what the existing member states gets out of it rather than what the applicant gets out of it. And Ukraine would get a much better deal than the average NATO ally if it were to join.
If you liked this post you can read a previous post about the Houthis here or the rest of my writings here. It'd mean a lot to me if you recommended the blog to a friend or coworker. Come back next Monday for a new post!
I've always been interested in politics, economics, and the interplay between. The blog is a place for me to explore different ideas and concepts relating to economics or politics, be that national or international. The goal for the blog is to make you think; to provide new perspectives.
Written by Karl Johansson
Cover photo by Konrad Ciężki from Pexels, edited by Karl Johansson
Comments