So should Ukraine join NATO?

I gather that we are on the path for Ukraine to NATO at some point in the future. It is clearly something that the current government of Ukraine wants, although Russia is hostile to the idea and the west is wary. Ukraine was in the Partnership for Peace program and working towards joining NATO until Viktor Yanokovich was elected President of Ukraine in 2010. He shut that effort down but was thrown out of power in 2014. The efforts of Ukraine to join NATO has now been re-activated.

Now, it is clear that Ukraine is back on the path to joining NATO and probably will at some point. Needless to say, Russia is not very happy about this. I gather the real question is whether this will be something that will be done sometime in the next 10-20 years or whether it is something that needs to be accelerated to maybe the next three years.

Russia’s saber rattling last week does sort of make the argument for three years vice 20 years. On the other hand, NATO has become an alliance of 30 western democracies, although a couple are what I call “troubled democracies” (Turkey and Hungary). Gone are the days when dictatorships like Portugal were part of NATO. So, it is now sort of expected that countries that join will have democratic structures and low levels of corruption. Ukraine posses several problems in that it is still a fledgling democracy, there is a lot of corruption, there are two “people’s republics” in an armed warlike state, and part of Ukraine (Crimea) has been occupied by Russia.

If a country joins NATO that is fighting a separatist movement, does NATO have an obligation to help? England was fighting in Northern Ireland for three decades and it was never a NATO problem. On the other hand, if a country joins NATO that has territory occupied by Russia, what is NATO’s responsibility for that? NATO is a defensive alliance. Does Ukraine joining NATO give it a free hand to try to change the status of Donetsk, Lugansk or Crimea? What if Russia responds? What are the requirements of the alliance then? Maybe entry into NATO needs to be delayed until these issues are resolved. As we have seen through, these can sometimes take a while (the Transnistia republic in Moldovia has been independent for 30 years, Taiwan has been independent for over 70 years).

So, should Ukraine join NATO
1. In the near team (3-5 years)?
2. In the long team (10-20 years)?
3. Not until all major outstanding international issues are resolved (which I gather means not in our lifetime)?
4. Never?

 

A few links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria

Share this:
Christopher A. Lawrence
Christopher A. Lawrence

Christopher A. Lawrence is a professional historian and military analyst. He is the Executive Director and President of The Dupuy Institute, an organization dedicated to scholarly research and objective analysis of historical data related to armed conflict and the resolution of armed conflict. The Dupuy Institute provides independent, historically-based analyses of lessons learned from modern military experience.
...
Mr. Lawrence was the program manager for the Ardennes Campaign Simulation Data Base, the Kursk Data Base, the Modern Insurgency Spread Sheets and for a number of other smaller combat data bases. He has participated in casualty estimation studies (including estimates for Bosnia and Iraq) and studies of air campaign modeling, enemy prisoner of war capture rates, medium weight armor, urban warfare, situational awareness, counterinsurgency and other subjects for the U.S. Army, the Defense Department, the Joint Staff and the U.S. Air Force. He has also directed a number of studies related to the military impact of banning antipersonnel mines for the Joint Staff, Los Alamos National Laboratories and the Vietnam Veterans of American Foundation.
...
His published works include papers and monographs for the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the Vietnam Veterans of American Foundation, in addition to over 40 articles written for limited-distribution newsletters and over 60 analytical reports prepared for the Defense Department. He is the author of Kursk: The Battle of Prokhorovka (Aberdeen Books, Sheridan, CO., 2015), America’s Modern Wars: Understanding Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam (Casemate Publishers, Philadelphia & Oxford, 2015), War by Numbers: Understanding Conventional Combat (Potomac Books, Lincoln, NE., 2017) , The Battle of Prokhorovka (Stackpole Books, Guilford, CT., 2019), The Battle for Kyiv (Frontline Books, Yorkshire, UK, 2023), Aces at Kursk (Air World, Yorkshire, UK, 2024), Hunting Falcon: The Story of WWI German Ace Hans-Joachim Buddecke (Air World, Yorkshire, UK, 2024) and The Siege of Mariupol (Frontline Books, Yorkshire, UK, 2024).
...
Mr. Lawrence lives in northern Virginia, near Washington, D.C., with his wife and son.

Articles: 1554

4 Comments

  1. Russia, under any form of governance, has historically been concerned about countries on its borders (generally wanting them to serve as buffer states). Border states joining NATO makes Russia become nervous! Obviously, Russia has had to live with that nervous state of affairs since the expansion of NATO to borders of Russia. Still, accommodating that concern of Russia might make for a more peaceful world (or at least a more peaceful Europe, in this case).

    How about including Ukraine in NATO (since it does border an appendage of an appendage of The North Atlantic Ocean, i.e. The Black Sea), but also negotiating a treaty (with the extent of each country’s territory defined in the treaty) between Ukraine, Poland (because of bordering the Kaliningrad Enclave), Lithuania (because of bordering the Kaliningrad Enclave), Latvia, Estonia, Norway, Turkey and Russia with treaty stipulations to the effect that those countries will demilitarize relevant borders and will pledge to refrain from attacking (including by proxy) across relevant borders and will allow only trip-wire forces of NATO nations to be stationed in those countries.

    If the offensive desires of Russia outweigh the defensive desires of Russia then the Russians won’t negotiate such a treaty and the situation is no worse than the current situation, but everyone wins a certain amount of border security if Russia agrees to such a treaty and Russia has reason to feel less anxious.

    One advantage of including the other NATO countries that border parts of Russia is that Russia gets to posture as having negotiated a grand system to its strategic (defensive) advantage rather than appear as being the victim of yet another bordering country joining the “enemy” alliance.

  2. Oh, preferably, backdoor diplomacy allows Russia to be the country that publicly proposes negotiating a grand treaty with those NATO nations (and even with non-NATO nations?) on its borders (with Ukraine advancing its application for NATO membership after the public proposing of the grand treaty by Russia).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *