Member countries must use NATO’s upcoming summit in Washington to reaffirm their commitment to admitting Ukraine. Refusing to offer a clear timetable for Ukrainian accession would fuel further aggression by signaling to Russian President Vladimir Putin that his neo-imperial dream is feasible.
BERKELEY/KYIV – At the signing ceremony of the North Atlantic Treaty on April 4, 1949, then-US President Harry Truman remarked that if this “simple document” had existed in 1914 and 1939, “it would have prevented the acts of aggression which led to two world wars.” The newly established alliance, he suggested, would ensure peace by deterring potential aggressors.
The success of this collective security strategy is reflected in the number of countries that have taken advantage of NATO’s open-door policy. Since 1949, the alliance has expanded from 12 to 32 members, with Finland and Sweden being the most recent additions. Now, member countries must commit to admitting Ukraine.
Bringing Ukraine into NATO is important for several reasons. For starters, any doubt about the alliance’s commitment to defend current or prospective members invites aggression. Russia is a case in point. The decision to shelve Ukraine and Georgia’s membership aspirations during the 2008 Bucharest summit led to Russia’s invasion of Georgia later that year. Similarly, turning a blind eye to Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea resulted in the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Failing to defeat Russia in Ukraine would inevitably lead to more wars of aggression. But by admitting Ukraine, NATO could tip the balance decisively in its favor and dispel any doubt about the alliance’s future, ensuring a lasting peace.
Moreover, appearing fearful of escalation or allowing its actions to be dictated by another power could push NATO into a death spiral. Giving in to threats would just lead to more threats and concessions. And if Ukraine falls, Estonia, Poland, Finland, or Taiwan will be next.
One of the basic tenets of NATO’s Cold War strategy was that force must be met with even greater force. In 1946, the late American diplomat George Kennan summarized this strategic principle, explaining that while the Soviet Union was “impervious to the logic of reason,” it was “highly sensitive” to the “logic of force.” Whenever its aggression met strong resistance, it retreated.
At a time when democracy is under threat, there is an urgent need for incisive, informed analysis of the issues and questions driving the news – just what PS has always provided. Subscribe now and save $50 on a new subscription.
Subscribe Now
The following decades vindicated Kennan. When Western powers showed they were determined to protect West Germany and South Korea during the Cold War, the Soviet Union backed down. Conversely, when the West hesitated, the Soviets attacked.
While US President Dwight Eisenhower’s invocation of the United Nations Charter failed to deter the USSR from invading Hungary in 1956, his successor, John F. Kennedy, spared West Berlin from meeting the same fate. Similarly, the West’s lackluster response to the Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 was followed by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.
By refusing to set a clear timetable for Ukrainian accession, NATO is capitulating to Russia’s demands, signaling to President Vladimir Putin that his dream of restoring the Russian empire is feasible and thus making World War III all but inevitable.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine exposed NATO’s vulnerabilities. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz recently declared that Germany is willing to send 35,000 troops to defend “every square foot” of NATO territory. But that commitment, while significant, pales in significance when one considers that 500,000 Russian troops are currently fighting in Ukraine. Moreover, the European defense industry has proven unable to supply Ukraine with sufficient weapons and equipment.
Had Ukraine fallen in three days, as many “experts” predicted in early 2022, Russian forces would now be in Kazakhstan, Moldova, and possibly the Baltic states and Poland. Given that Ukraine has the only European army that is both motivated and battle-hardened enough to resist Russia, admitting Ukraine would undoubtedly bolster NATO’s military capabilities.
While some might argue that such a move would force the Kremlin to respond, it is highly unlikely to use nuclear weapons. The USSR posed a much greater nuclear threat, yet the West did not surrender to Soviet blackmail. As German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer put it in 1961, while the nuclear threats “directed from time to time against one or other of the NATO partners” were dangerous, the “Soviet government must know that by any such blow, it would touch off a counter-blow by which it would be annihilated.”
Was there truly zero probability of the USSR using nuclear weapons? Certainly not. But Western policymakers at the time understood that giving in to extortion would increase the likelihood of such an attack, not lessen it.
Lastly, the West must realize that Russia is already at war with NATO. The Kremlin is financing terrorism, engaging in disinformation campaigns, fueling domestic conflicts, meddling in the elections of democratic countries, and reportedly planning a sabotage campaign across Europe.
Unfortunately, Western democracies have been too slow to accept reality. While political leaders debated whether NATO “provoked” Putin and whether they should allow Putin to “save face,” China and Russia have deepened their “no limits” military partnership and formed an “axis of upheaval” that is now threatening to undermine the US-led international order.
In 1988, then-US President Ronald Reagan explained that NATO is not about “today or tomorrow” but rather about “what Europe [will] look like in 15 years.” While we cannot predict the future, two things are clear. If Ukraine falls, Europe could bleed for decades because Russia will not stop in Ukraine. Alternatively, with Ukraine as a member, the alliance could promote peace through deterrence, as it did during the Cold War.
The destinies of Ukraine, Europe, and NATO are inextricably linked. As French President Emmanuel Macron recently acknowledged, “Europe is mortal,” and its demise may already be in sight. The acute threat posed by Russia’s revanchist ambitions underscores the need for urgent action. NATO members must use the July summit in Washington to invite Ukraine to join the alliance.
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
Bashar al-Assad’s fall from power has created an opportunity for the political and economic reconstruction of a key Arab state. But the record of efforts to stabilize post-conflict societies in the Middle East is littered with failure, and the next few months will most likely determine Syria's political trajectory.
say that Syrians themselves must do the hard work, but multilateral assistance has an important role to play.
The US president-elect has vowed to round up illegal immigrants and raise tariffs, but he will probably fail to reinvigorate the economy for the masses, who will watch the rich get richer on crypto and AI. America has been here before, and if Trump doesn’t turn on the business class and lay the blame at its feet, someone else will.
thinks the next president will be forced to choose between big business and the forgotten man.
BERKELEY/KYIV – At the signing ceremony of the North Atlantic Treaty on April 4, 1949, then-US President Harry Truman remarked that if this “simple document” had existed in 1914 and 1939, “it would have prevented the acts of aggression which led to two world wars.” The newly established alliance, he suggested, would ensure peace by deterring potential aggressors.
The success of this collective security strategy is reflected in the number of countries that have taken advantage of NATO’s open-door policy. Since 1949, the alliance has expanded from 12 to 32 members, with Finland and Sweden being the most recent additions. Now, member countries must commit to admitting Ukraine.
Bringing Ukraine into NATO is important for several reasons. For starters, any doubt about the alliance’s commitment to defend current or prospective members invites aggression. Russia is a case in point. The decision to shelve Ukraine and Georgia’s membership aspirations during the 2008 Bucharest summit led to Russia’s invasion of Georgia later that year. Similarly, turning a blind eye to Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea resulted in the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Failing to defeat Russia in Ukraine would inevitably lead to more wars of aggression. But by admitting Ukraine, NATO could tip the balance decisively in its favor and dispel any doubt about the alliance’s future, ensuring a lasting peace.
Moreover, appearing fearful of escalation or allowing its actions to be dictated by another power could push NATO into a death spiral. Giving in to threats would just lead to more threats and concessions. And if Ukraine falls, Estonia, Poland, Finland, or Taiwan will be next.
One of the basic tenets of NATO’s Cold War strategy was that force must be met with even greater force. In 1946, the late American diplomat George Kennan summarized this strategic principle, explaining that while the Soviet Union was “impervious to the logic of reason,” it was “highly sensitive” to the “logic of force.” Whenever its aggression met strong resistance, it retreated.
HOLIDAY SALE: PS for less than $0.7 per week
At a time when democracy is under threat, there is an urgent need for incisive, informed analysis of the issues and questions driving the news – just what PS has always provided. Subscribe now and save $50 on a new subscription.
Subscribe Now
The following decades vindicated Kennan. When Western powers showed they were determined to protect West Germany and South Korea during the Cold War, the Soviet Union backed down. Conversely, when the West hesitated, the Soviets attacked.
While US President Dwight Eisenhower’s invocation of the United Nations Charter failed to deter the USSR from invading Hungary in 1956, his successor, John F. Kennedy, spared West Berlin from meeting the same fate. Similarly, the West’s lackluster response to the Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 was followed by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.
By refusing to set a clear timetable for Ukrainian accession, NATO is capitulating to Russia’s demands, signaling to President Vladimir Putin that his dream of restoring the Russian empire is feasible and thus making World War III all but inevitable.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine exposed NATO’s vulnerabilities. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz recently declared that Germany is willing to send 35,000 troops to defend “every square foot” of NATO territory. But that commitment, while significant, pales in significance when one considers that 500,000 Russian troops are currently fighting in Ukraine. Moreover, the European defense industry has proven unable to supply Ukraine with sufficient weapons and equipment.
Had Ukraine fallen in three days, as many “experts” predicted in early 2022, Russian forces would now be in Kazakhstan, Moldova, and possibly the Baltic states and Poland. Given that Ukraine has the only European army that is both motivated and battle-hardened enough to resist Russia, admitting Ukraine would undoubtedly bolster NATO’s military capabilities.
While some might argue that such a move would force the Kremlin to respond, it is highly unlikely to use nuclear weapons. The USSR posed a much greater nuclear threat, yet the West did not surrender to Soviet blackmail. As German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer put it in 1961, while the nuclear threats “directed from time to time against one or other of the NATO partners” were dangerous, the “Soviet government must know that by any such blow, it would touch off a counter-blow by which it would be annihilated.”
Was there truly zero probability of the USSR using nuclear weapons? Certainly not. But Western policymakers at the time understood that giving in to extortion would increase the likelihood of such an attack, not lessen it.
Lastly, the West must realize that Russia is already at war with NATO. The Kremlin is financing terrorism, engaging in disinformation campaigns, fueling domestic conflicts, meddling in the elections of democratic countries, and reportedly planning a sabotage campaign across Europe.
Unfortunately, Western democracies have been too slow to accept reality. While political leaders debated whether NATO “provoked” Putin and whether they should allow Putin to “save face,” China and Russia have deepened their “no limits” military partnership and formed an “axis of upheaval” that is now threatening to undermine the US-led international order.
In 1988, then-US President Ronald Reagan explained that NATO is not about “today or tomorrow” but rather about “what Europe [will] look like in 15 years.” While we cannot predict the future, two things are clear. If Ukraine falls, Europe could bleed for decades because Russia will not stop in Ukraine. Alternatively, with Ukraine as a member, the alliance could promote peace through deterrence, as it did during the Cold War.
The destinies of Ukraine, Europe, and NATO are inextricably linked. As French President Emmanuel Macron recently acknowledged, “Europe is mortal,” and its demise may already be in sight. The acute threat posed by Russia’s revanchist ambitions underscores the need for urgent action. NATO members must use the July summit in Washington to invite Ukraine to join the alliance.