NATO membership or, even a membership action plan (known as MAP) to the 30-nation military alliance, has never been a plausible option for Ukraine in the near term.
Not because Ukraine is unworthy of NATO membership, but because a number of current NATO members are unworthy of Ukraine. Whereas Ukraine is prepared to stand up for “European values” to a tyrannical, repressive regime, some NATO members are more interested in profiting from that regime.
Let me emphatically restate my belief that membership in NATO is not, and has never been, in the cards, and — even if Ukraine were offered a MAP, it would be at least a decade before Ukraine could meet all requirements.
But then section 3 of MAP’s introductory article would kick in as NATO’s “catch 22” in further deferring Ukraine’s membership; to whit: “… MAP does not imply any timeframe … nor any guarantee of eventual membership. The program cannot be considered as a list of criteria for membership.”
Macedonia’s example
If further proof is needed of how NATO’s MAP works, consider tiny, peaceful, Macedonia — a Slavic country with serious corruption problems. It had a MAP for 20 years, but has only recently been admitted into NATO. Why 20 years? Greece refused its entry unless it changed its name from the Republic of Macedonia to the Republic of North Macedonia so that Greece could continue the fiction of claiming Alexander the Great as its own.
Although NATO members wanted Macedonia in NATO to stabilize its ever-turbulent, soft Balkan underbelly, just one country’s vanity sidetracked its entry for 20 years. How many European countries (starting with Germany and France) would sidetrack Ukraine’s entry if for no other reason than “good relations”(read: good business) with Russia?
Recent news from the Joe Biden administration (as reflected in President Volodymyr Zelensky’s critical comments) has also been bleak for Ukraine. Despite Biden’s campaign pledges, and despite the strong bilateral support Ukraine maintains in the U. S. Congress, and despite U.S Sectary of State Antony Blinken’s recent reenactment in Kyiv of Biden’s “we have your back” performance as vice president, Ukraine’s interests seem to have been placed on the administration’s back burner.
So what position should Ukraine take on NATO, MAP, and its national security?
I propose a 3-pronged solution.
Keep trying for NATO
Ukraine should retain NATO membership as the lodestone of its ultimate integration into the European security system, and establish a “virtual” MAP program of reform. NATO’s standards are sound and successful and Ukraine will profit greatly by adopting those requirements and standards as its own. It should continue its “partnership” relationship with NATO to include joint exercises, training, peacekeeping missions, conferences, and a permanent diplomatic presence. Whether in or outside of NATO, the adoption of NATO standards and close working relationships with its principals may result in a de facto (if not de jure) “acceptance,” though without commitments by either side. Ukraine has nothing to lose and much to gain. And if the occasion for admission should arise, Ukraine will be ready.
Work with neighbors
Ukraine should greatly elevate its bilateral and multilateral military relations with those “frontline” states that share Ukraine’s trepidation about Russian aggression. These would include the three Baltic states, Poland, Romania, Georgia, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Moldova, and perhaps one or two others. These relations may take the form of joint production or funding of advanced weaponry (e.g. Turkish drones), exercises, mutual support agreements, secret protocols on coordination and sanctuaries for homeland defense, combined naval patrols, etc. Although NATO — as an entity — may resist enhanced integration with Ukraine, the “frontline” states do recognize Ukraine’s importance as the strongest buttress of their outer defense perimeter and would want to strengthen those ties. Ukraine’s “NATO-lite” support network may serve as a further deterrence to Russia. [Remember, every NATO member knows that NATO’s famous “Article 5” is merely a deterrence… it does not “guarantee” any greater support or intervention than other members are singly willing to provide (or not)].
US, UK & Canada
Lastly, Ukraine must greatly enlarge and upgrade its influence in the three countries that have been the bedrock of Ukraine’s support and stability these last three decades: the U.S., U.K., and Canada. It has been much too easy for the Biden administration to walk away from its promises to Ukraine without suffering meaningful political or electoral consequences. Just as ex-President Donald J. Trump (regardless of his wishes) was compelled by Congress to provide Ukraine with lethal weapons and national security funding, so must the Ukrainian government assure that continuing support is not dependent on the whims or vacillations of a weak or imprudent president.
Consider the case of Taiwan and Israel as case studies. Diplomatic pressure Ukrainian officials, in coordination with its diaspora, must ramp up diplomatic and political pressure and influence, and vigorously engage in “public diplomacy” so that the citizens of those three countries and their opinion and decision-makers fully understand and support Ukraine’s position. Perhaps Ukraine should start with a substantial increase of its diplomatic missions to all three states, staffed with articulate, English-speaking post-Soviet experts. The Diaspora has a surfeit of talented writers, lawyers, public speakers, historians, etc. whose volunteer services must be engaged in this effort.
Most importantly, all three parts of the “Trident” solution must have as their end goal the acquisition and deployment of technologically advanced defensive weapons that would transform Ukraine into a “porcupine” state — one bristling with enough weapons and capability to destroy much of Russia’s invading air, sea, and land forces so that the prize would not be worth the price.
Stingers, harpoons, javelins, drones; “Neptune” cruise missiles (capable of collapsing Russia’s bridge over Kerch and sinking most of its Black Sea fleet); mobile directed energy systems… Ukraine’s considerable scientific, engineering, and IT talent should be “mobilized” in ensuring that Ukraine need no longer rely on NATO and the dubious pledges of its member states. Mobilization is a nation’s response to war. Ukraine is in a state of war.
George Woloshyn is a retired senior executive and Senate-confirmed presidential appointee in the administration of President Ronald Reagan. He had served as head of government-wide civilian personnel security, national security emergency preparedness, and as inspector general of a regulatory agency. He has also been active in philanthropic programs involving Ukraine.
