The Irrelevance of Debating NATO Membership for Ukraine

President Donald Trump’s dogged pursuit of so-called “peace” in Ukraine at any cost to Ukrainians and Europeans has led him to pause military aid to Ukraine in the midst of its war of self-defense against Russia’s brutal and unprovoked invasion. This decision creates more uncertainty than it provides assurances about the fate of NATO and the opportunity for a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine. The announcement followed the dressing down of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy by Trump and his Vice President in a shocking Oval Office meeting that cast the future of American security guarantees to Europe into doubt. It now remains unclear precisely what Trump seeks to accomplish through a peace deal. In the absence of any predictability or stability in a tumultuous White House that takes a hard line on allies, and is soft on adversaries, making predictions at this stage is a fool’s errand.

One thing that seems certain though is that there is little point in discussing Ukrainian membership in NATO for the foreseeable future. This is because NATO’s Article 5 security assurances may be worthless under Trump. While debate continues about whether Trump can unilaterally withdraw the United States from NATO without Congressional oversight, the President – who once pondered withdrawing from NATO during his first term[i] - does have options that could raise existential questions about the Alliance’s future. In the current moment, do any of America’s allies really expect Trump’s America to rush to their defense in the event of Russian provocations? And, if Pax Americana is crumbling, what’s the point of talking about NATO membership for Ukraine?

Talk of Ukraine’s potential membership has long been a point of consternation for Russia, and likely contributed to Russian threat perceptions about NATO. Since the beginning of the war, Russian President Vladimir Putin has amplified his resistance to Ukraine joining NATO. Whether there was ever any real chance of Ukraine joining the Alliance is debatable. In the wake of the astonishing showdown between Trump and Zelenskyy in the White House, it is nearly impossible to imagine it happening now. Even before this historic meeting, US National Security Advisor Mike Waltz warned that the matter of security guarantees for Ukraine lies “squarely with the Europeans,“ and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reinforced the point that any European troops in Ukraine would be “operating without a US guarantee.”[ii] As the US abdicates its security guarantees in Europe, and adopts narratives that align more closely with Putin’s desires than with those of its allies, there is a real possibility that, at best, Article 5 becomes meaningless under Trump and, at worst, that the end of NATO is nigh. For now, there is little need to debate Ukrainian membership in NATO, which should never have been on the table in the first place. The prospect of Ukraine joining NATO was heavily resisted by Moscow for years, most notably following the 2008 Bucharest Summit, when Ukrainian membership in the alliance was discussed, but little action was taken to make it happen. This talk fed Ukrainian hopes, as well as Russian threat perceptions, without meaningfully providing the security guarantees Ukraine desired.

Russia’s resistance to NATO expansion often falls on deaf ears and any Western patience for it that may have existed has all but dried up in the wake of the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. American officials have repeatedly assured Putin about NATO’s intentions, while pursuing policies that hedge against a resurgent Russia. Unfortunately, the denial of Russia’s security interests and the encroachment of what is perceived as an anti-Russian alliance has fed an anti-Western sentiment in Russia akin to a “rally-around-the-flag” effect[iii] that benefits Putin’s war effort. Westernizing voices in Russia that were once oriented toward the West have largely been silenced by the perception that anti-Russian sentiment drove NATO expansion and will not stop until Russian power has been “degraded.” This fuels a powerful counter narrative of anti-Western nationalism that plays right into Putin’s hands.[iv]

While understandably unpopular, perhaps the best path now is to acknowledge Russia’s concerns about NATO and find a more credible way to demonstrate collective resolve in support of Ukrainian sovereignty. To be clear, NATO and its expansion are not responsible for Putin’s war. That being said, it is not unreasonable to consider Russia’s security concerns as part of the peace negotiations. Ukrainian sovereignty cannot be denied, but talk of its potential membership in NATO is neither necessary or helpful, and it may not even be sensible, given the Trump administration’s downgrading of its alliance commitments, and what appears to be sympathy for the Kremlin. All of this may portend a shift in US grand strategy, and likely forecloses any discussion of NATO membership for Ukraine.

The current moment is one of great uncertainty and leaves more questions than it offers answers: is this the beginning of a major shift in US strategic posture, and will the present antagonisms toward Ukrainian and European partners continue? In the first few weeks of his presidency, President Trump has managed to unite Europe, divide NATO, and please Putin. But the one shred of light in all this is that the prospect of NATO membership for Ukraine is suspended, which may shift Russian attitudes about a peace agreement. If the invasion of Ukraine had anything at all to do with Russian worries about NATO, then taking Ukrainian membership off the table should help to alleviate Russian insecurities and enable the conditions for a peace deal. If not, then European and Ukrainian leaders (with Canadian partners), already pivoting toward strategic autonomy, will have to find ways to counter Russian aggression without the benefit of American security guarantees. Either way, Ukraine is not likely to join NATO any time soon.

Kari Roberts, PhD, is Professor of Political Science and Chair of the Department of Economics, Justice, and Policy Studies at Mount Royal University in Calgary, Canada.

[i] “Trump Discussed Pulling U.S. From NATO, Aides Say Amid New Concerns From Russia,” New York Times, January 14, 2029. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/14/us/politics/nato-president-trump.html

[ii] Thomas Wright 2025. “The Right US Strategy for Russia-Ukraine Negotiations,” Foreign Affairs (March/April).

[iii] Andrei Tsygankov 2024. “Russia and Its Four Wests,” E-International Relations, Mar 9. Available at: https://www.e-ir.info/2024/03/09/russia-and-its-four-wests/

[iv] Ibid.