For Nato, the Ukraine question has no right answer

As Nato leaders gather in Vilnius for a summit that will shape the future of Europe's, and by extension, the world's security, one country is at the centre of attention: Ukraine. 

Ukraine has been gunning for a seat at the proverbial table for some time now and back in 2008, during its Bucharest summit, Nato agreed that Ukraine "will" become a member and supported its application. 

However, the alliance did not specify how or when this might occur. Since then, the waters have muddied significantly. Critics go as far as saying this vague statement incentivised Putin to start a war before Ukraine joined the club.

Ukraine's desperation for Nato membership is understandably driven by its desire to secure and strengthen itself further against Russia, which has resulted in a war that has now killed over 100,000 and displaced millions. 

Ukraine sees Nato as the only credible guarantor of its security and independence and has repeatedly asked the alliance to grant it a Membership Action Plan (MAP), a formal step towards joining. But the MAP is a process that might take decades to come to fruition, further complicating things.

On the topic of membership, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky wants Nato to announce that Ukraine could join as soon as the conflict stops, and to specify how and when this could happen.

However, some Nato members are hesitant to go too far, believing that the prospect of near-automatic membership will provide Russia with an incentive to escalate and prolong the war.

Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stated that no final decision on the phrasing of the final communiqué had been made but added, "I am absolutely certain that we will have unity and a strong message on Ukraine."

Sweden's in, finally

Sweden, known for its policy of military non-alignment, abandoned that principle due to the Ukraine war and applied for Nato membership last year. Finland who also applied during the same time gained entry last April, but Sweden was kept hanging due to opposition from Turkey. 

For over a year, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been opposing Sweden's membership in Nato due to various concerns. 

However, following late-night talks on Monday, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg revealed that Turkey had decided to support Sweden's Nato membership application. The news was hailed by the United States, Germany, and Sweden.

Turkey had been refusing to accept Stockholm's application for months, accusing it of harbouring Kurdish insurgents. Stoltenberg stated that the two countries had collaborated to resolve Turkey's "legitimate security concerns."

Erdogan previously stated that if the EU reopened blocked membership discussions with Ankara, he would support Sweden – a request that EU officials rejected.

This was a particularly painful thorn in Nato's side as it showed signs of internal division ahead of its annual summit. The end of Turkish resistance will now allow members to shift all their focus onto the Ukraine question: If and when do they let Ukraine in?

Ukraine membership more complicated than Turkey-Sweden spat

Ukraine's Nato membership has been vehemently opposed by Russia, which sees it as a threat to its borders and sphere of influence. Ukraine officially joining Nato now will make Russia more desperate, likely resulting in the intensification of the war in unpredictable ways and further strengthening the narrative that Nato is just a tool for further extending Western hegemony.

There is also no consensus within Nato about whether or not to bring Ukraine into the alliance now, at this moment, in the middle of a war. Some allies, especially those in Eastern Europe, are supportive of Ukraine's aspirations and see it as a way to deter further Russian expansionism. 

Others, including the US, are more cautious, partly due to fears that moving quickly on Nato membership could provoke a direct conflict with Russia that could escalate into a nuclear war.

Moreover, Ukraine still needs to meet some requirements for joining Nato, such as implementing democratic reforms, strengthening the rule of law, fighting corruption and modernising its security sector. 

Nato has offered Ukraine a "rational path" to membership but has not given a clear timeline or roadmap for the process. The US and its allies can go for the Israel route, where they provide Ukraine all-out military and financial assistance to defend itself without getting directly involved.

Article 5 could drag Nato into an all-out war

The decision to admit Ukraine into Nato would uphold the important pledge under Article 5 of its treaty that an attack on any member is an attack on all. This pledge is considered sacred. 

It is worth noting that Russia views Ukraine as part of its sphere of influence, even though this claim lacks a basis in international law and they lost any moral standing after the Russia-Ukraine war began. 

Admitting Ukraine now can mean potentially forcing future Western leaders to engage in war with a nuclear-armed Russia that they had no say in, and potentially risking a third World War in the event of another attack by the Kremlin on its neighbouring country.

During their two-day meeting, Nato leaders are likely to devise new plans to protect the union and stop any future Russian attacks by putting more troops in the east.

And they are expected to spend more money on defence, putting the goal of spending 2% of the country's wealth on defence a minimum instead of a general goal.

Supporters of Ukraine's membership in Nato argue that the security and territorial integrity provided to former Warsaw Pact nations like Poland, Hungary, and Romania over the past decades serve as evidence that Ukraine would also be safe from future incursions by Moscow once it is under Nato's mutual defence umbrella. 

The argument holds particular significance because the host of the summit, Lithuania, along with its Baltic counterparts Latvia and Estonia, was previously annexed by the Soviet Union. These countries were considered highly susceptible to Russian influence until they joined Nato in 2004. Vilnius, itself, is located close to Belarus and the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad.

Arguments for and against

Supporters of Kyiv's accession argue that the vague promise of future membership, initially made at the Bucharest summit in 2008, complicated the situation and at least some blame for the current situation falls on that decision. Nato can no longer afford to make such mistakes. 

The Baltic states and other nations in Eastern Europe are seeking as much clarity as possible. They want the alliance to emphasise how far Ukraine has come towards membership, particularly how closely its army can interact with other Nato forces, given that it has similar weapons and methods. They also want Nato to specify what further conditions Ukraine must meet in order to get membership.

But Ukraine's entry into Nato may cause problems in the near and the far-flung future. During a recent CNN interview, Biden cautioned that engaging in such actions during a time of war would promptly oblige the alliance to protect a new ally, thereby demonstrating the group's commitment to collective defence. 

"It's a commitment that we've all made no matter what. If the war is going on, then we're all in the war. We're at war with Russia, if that were the case," he explained.

Providing Ukraine with a specific date for joining after the war concludes could potentially be counterproductive, as it may give the Kremlin a justification to prolong the conflict indefinitely. If Ukraine's forces are unable to expel all Russian forces, it would significantly diminish the already slim chances of a political settlement. 

There is a concern that taking this action could inadvertently bolster Putin's position within Russia. It may give the impression that the West is validating one of his unfounded claims – that the West instigated the war in Ukraine as a means to weaken Russian influence and seize control of the country.

Certain allies, such as Germany, have been advocating exercising caution when making extensive promises to Ukraine. They are urging Ukraine to take further action in addressing corruption, enhancing its judiciary, and ensuring civilian oversight of its military.

Therefore, Ukraine's plea for Nato membership is such a profound dilemma for the West because it involves balancing the need to support Ukraine's sovereignty and security against the risk of provoking Russia into a larger war that could have catastrophic consequences for Europe and the world. 

Whichever way they end up leaning towards, the decision will test Nato's unity, credibility and resolve in dealing with one of its most formidable adversaries.