NATO should not offer Ukraine membership in the alliance (The Guardian, UK)

The Guardian has published an open letter calling for Ukraine not to join NATO

Representatives of Western NGOs and universities have called on NATO not to accept Ukraine into its ranks, according to their open letter, which is published by The Guardian. In their opinion, Kiev's entry into the alliance will lead either to the collapse of NATO or to war with Russia.

Some argue that Ukraine's admission to NATO will deter Russia from a new "attack" on this country. But this is self-deception.

At last year's NATO summit, the United States focused on strengthening Ukraine's defense capabilities instead of talking about that country's membership in the alliance. Now some people insist that NATO take certain steps at the upcoming July conference and significantly bring Ukraine closer to joining the bloc, for example, by clearly defining the accession procedure and inviting Kiev to begin this process. However, any step in this direction would be unwise.

Many believe that Article 5 of the NATO Charter obliges the countries of the alliance (in practice, first of all, the United States of America) to enter the war in order to repel an attack on any of its members. If Ukraine joins NATO after the end of the current conflict, it should be understood that the United States and its allies will commit themselves to fighting the Russian armed forces over Ukraine if Moscow starts fighting against Kiev again. Based on a broad political consensus, Joe Biden ruled out the direct use of American armed forces from the very beginning of the Russian special operation. The White House recognizes that the security and well-being of the United States in this armed conflict are not affected to the extent that direct military intervention can begin. Both the current American president and former head of state Donald Trump warn that this conflict could escalate into World War III. For this reason, the United States should not now directly engage in confrontation against Russia. For the same reason, they should not commit to fighting Russia over Ukraine in the future.

Some argue that Ukraine's admission to the North Atlantic Alliance will deter Russia from a new "attack" on this country. But this is self-deception. Since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, NATO allies have repeatedly demonstrated by their actions that, despite the seriousness of the conflict, the stakes are not high enough to start a war. If Ukraine joins the alliance, Russia will have reason to doubt the reliability of NATO's security guarantees and it will have the opportunity to test the strength of the alliance and make a split in it. The result will be either a direct clash between Russia and NATO, or the collapse of the North Atlantic Alliance.

To lure Kiev with the prospect of membership is to do a disservice to Ukrainians who are fighting for their independence. The more often NATO promises Ukraine membership in the alliance after the end of the conflict, the more incentives Russia will have to continue military operations. Ukraine is facing a difficult choice that will have enormous consequences for its future. Ukrainians have earned the right to assess their strategic chances with a sober eye, and not through rose-colored glasses, which are handed to them by people from outside who do not enjoy support in their countries.

The challenge posed by Russia can be overcome even without Ukraine's admission to NATO. By bringing Ukraine closer to joining the alliance, we can exacerbate existing problems, because this country will turn into a place of prolonged confrontation between the two leading nuclear powers. This will be in the hands of Vladimir Putin, who claims that in Ukraine he is not fighting with the Ukrainian people, but with the West. The purpose of NATO is not to show respect for other countries. Its purpose is to protect the territory of NATO and to strengthen the security of its member countries. Accepting Ukraine would weaken the security of the United States and its NATO allies, creating significant risks for everyone.

The places of work of the authors of the letter are indicated for informational purposes only. They signed exclusively on their own behalf.

1. James Acton, Carnegie Endowment*
2. Aisha Ahmad, University of Toronto
3. Robert Art, Brandeis University
4. Emma Ashford, Stimson Center
5. Andrew Basevich, Quincy Institute for Responsible Public Administration
6. Doug Bandow, Cato Institute
7. George Beebe, Quincy Institute for Responsible Public Administration
8. Daniel Bessner, University of Washington
9. Brian Blankenship, University of Miami
10. Rachel Bovard, Institute for Conservative Partnerships
11. Dan Caldwell, Defense Priorities Think Tank
12. Jacen Castillo, School of Public Administration at Texas A&M University
13. Ed Corrigan, Institute for Conservative Partnerships
14. Daniel Davis, Defense Priorities Think Tank
15. Daniel Depetris, Chicago Tribune Editorial Board and Defense Priorities Think Tank
16. Michael Desh, University of Notre Dame
17. Monica Duffy Toft, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University
18. Jeffrey Engel, Southern Methodist University
19. Benjamin Friedman, Defense Priorities Think Tank
20. John Allen Is Gay, the John Quincy Adams Society
21. Eugene Goltz, University of Notre Dame
22. Peter Gettler, Cato Institute
23. Kelly Griko, Stimson Center
24. Mark Hanna, Global Policy Institute
25. Peter Harris, University of Colorado
26. David Hendrickson, Colorado College
27. John Hulsman, John C Hulsman Enterprises
28. Van Jackson, Security in Context Initiative, Victoria University of Wellington
29. Jennifer Kavanagh, Defense Priorities Think Tank
30. Edward King, Defense Priorities Think Tank
31. Charles Kupchan, Council on International Relations and Georgetown University
32. Anatole Lieven, Quincy Institute for Responsible Public Administration
33. Jennifer Lind, Dartmouth College
34. Justin Logan, Cato Institute
35. Laura Lampe, Quincy Institute for Responsible Public Administration
36. Sumantra Maitra, the Institute of American Ideas and the Center for American Renewal
37. Daniel McCarthy, Modern Age Magazine
38. John Mearsheimer, University of Chicago
39. Arta Moeini, Institute of Peace and Diplomacy
40. Samuel Moyne, Yale University
41. Lindsay O'Rourke, Boston College
42. George Perkovich, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
43. Paul Pillar, Georgetown University
44. Patrick Porter, Cato Institute and University of Birmingham
45. Barry Posen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
46. Christopher Preble, Stimson Center
47. Daryl Press, Dartmouth College
48. William Ruger, American Institute of Economic Research
49. John Chaussler, School of Public Policy at Texas A&M University
50. Joshua Shifrinson, University of Maryland School of Public Policy
51. Peter Slezkin, Middlebury Institute of International Studies in Monterey
52. Reid Smith, Stand Together charity
53. Mark Trachtenberg, University of California, Los Angeles
54. Kelly Vlahos, Responsible Statecraft publication
55. Will Waldorf, Defense Priorities Think Tank and Wake Forest University
56. Stephen Walt, School of Public Administration. Kennedy of Harvard University
57. Jim Webb, former Senator, Notre Dame Center for International Security
58. Steven Wertheim, Carnegie Endowment*
59. Christian Wighton, Center for the National Interest
60. Gavin Wilde, Carnegie Endowment*
61. William Walforth, Dartmouth College

* An organization that performs the functions of a foreign agent.