NATO needs Ukraine, and Ukraine needs NATO. Admitting Ukraine to the alliance is the right thing to do, both ethically and strategically.
U.S. President Donald Trump’s summit with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin in Alaska ended without a peace deal, without a ceasefire, and without any measurable takeaways whatsoever. Even Fox News reporters admitted that “it did not seem like things went well,” and that Putin “steamrolled”:
Putin had his stature raised by getting a meeting with the U.S. President, which has reduced the isolation he faced following his decision to invade Ukraine. Putin made zero concessions, and Trump has now backed off his previous call for a ceasefire. Once again, Trump threatened consequences if Russia refused to agree to a ceasefire (Ukraine has already agreed), only to back down. Similar to his recent concessions to China (allowing them to buy US chips, refusing to tariff China as he has tariffed India for buying Russian oil, putting off tariffs again), Trump seems to prefer to show ‘toughness’ against US allies rather than adversaries.
Following the meeting with Putin, Trump spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and some European leaders, where the topic of security guarantees for Ukraine was discussed. Reportedly, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni says Trump is offering non-NATO guarantees that mimic NATO’s Article 5 (an attack on one is an attack on all).
This would be a step in the right direction for Ukraine, but it doesn’t go far enough.
Instead, Ukraine should be offered full NATO membership.
Ukraine has earned NATO membership more than any current member
First and foremost, NATO exists to protect its members from Russia (previously the Soviet Union). Most NATO members are militarily weaker than Russia individually (the U.S. is a clear exception, of course), but collectively, NATO is supposed to outweigh Russia’s power. However, with the U.S. commitment to NATO having become more tenuous, and with Russia switching to a full war economy and threatening NATO countries like the Baltics and Poland, NATO’s advantage vs Russia is not as large as it may seem. For example, Russia is outproducing all of NATO in artillery shell production, and – when adjusted for purchasing power parity – its military budget is $462 billion, larger than the United Kingdom and all of Europe combined.
Further, many NATO nations’ militaries are built for fighting the wars of the past, not the wars of the future.
As you can see, there is a real deal to be made here. Ukraine needs ironclad security guarantees, the kind that only real NATO membership can provide. NATO needs a battle-hardened military and defence industry built with knowledge based on the rapid changes in warfare.
Ukraine needs NATO, and NATO needs Ukraine.
There is also the ethical dimension here. Russia poses a risk to NATO countries – including Canada. Ukraine has – at great cost – whittled down Russia’s massive stockpile of Soviet-era weapons, thus giving NATO nations a chance to rebuild and catch up. Thus, Ukraine has done what NATO exists to do, all without being a part of it. They have paid the price. They have borne the full burden. Haven’t they earned membership and the right to enjoy a sense of security?
To make Ukraine jump through hoops to join NATO is ridiculous at this point. They have paid their membership dues in blood, and it’s time for NATO to welcome Ukraine into the family.
Spencer Fernando
If this piece left you clearer than it found you, that's the point. I write for readers who want to think past the week, to see the longer pattern beneath the daily story, and to come away steadier rather than more agitated.
That longer view gets built somewhere. On Patreon, essay by essay, I'm constructing The Long Work, a body of analysis meant to outlast the news cycle that prompted it. The readers there make it possible. No subsidies, no strings. The work answers to them.
$8/month to read it as it's built, and to have a hand in building it.