Defense Priorities Defense Priorities
  • Policy Topics
    • Ukraine-Russia
    • Israel-Hamas
    • NATO
    • China
    • Syria
    • North Korea
  • Research
    • Briefs
    • Explainers
    • Reports
  • Programs
    • Grand Strategy Program
    • Military Analysis Program
    • Asia Program
    • Middle East Program
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Media
  • About
    • Mission & Vision
    • People
    • Jobs
    • Contact
  • Donate
Select Page
Home / NATO / Nato’s members still don’t see eye to eye on Ukraine
NATO, Europe and Eurasia, Ukraine, Ukraine‑Russia

July 11, 2023

Nato’s members still don’t see eye to eye on Ukraine

By Daniel DePetris

US President Joe Biden flew into Vilnius, Lithuania early on Tuesday with a big task ahead of him: to keep Nato as united as possible at a time when the alliance is fractured on a bunch of major issues. Foremost among them is when and how to provide Ukraine a path toward eventual membership.

In public, the two-day session will be full of group photos of smiling heads of state and warm words about the alliance’s resolve in the face of Russian aggression. But behind closed doors, where the actual business is done, difficult conversations will certainly be had. While Nato’s 31 member states (soon to be 32 when Sweden’s accession process is complete) have pledged to come to one another’s defence, the fact is that some of these countries are coming to the table with different positions.

As expected, the possibility of Ukrainian membership in Nato is getting most of the media attention and sucking up all of the oxygen in the room. In 2008, during a previous heads of state summit, Nato declared in writing that Ukraine, as well as Georgia, would become Nato members at some undefined date in the future.

The Ukrainians have been waiting for the last fifteen years for the alliance to make good on that written pledge. But the question of when to do so has been in a frequent thorn in the alliance’s side. Russia’s decision to launch a war in Ukraine last year means that Nato membership is simply not feasible for the Ukrainians as long as the fighting goes on: the alliance has a decades-long policy that aspiring members need to resolve their territorial disputes before their applications are given serious consideration.

Read at The Spectator

Author

Photo of Daniel DePetris

Daniel
DePetris

Fellow

Defense Priorities

More on Europe

In the mediaUkraine‑Russia, Europe and Eurasia, Russia, Ukraine

Analysis: Putin in negotiations with U.S. presidents over the years

Featuring Jennifer Kavanagh

May 27, 2025

op-edUkraine‑Russia, Russia, Ukraine

It’s time for America to walk away completely from Ukraine–Russia

By Anthony Constantini

May 16, 2025

op-edUkraine‑Russia, Europe and Eurasia, Russia, Ukraine

Ukraine War: Why Demanding Putin’s Unconditional Ceasefire is a Mistake

By Daniel Davis

May 12, 2025

op-edUkraine‑Russia, Europe and Eurasia, Russia, Ukraine

Accepting ‘Ugly Terms’: Is This the Only Path to End the Ukraine War?

By Daniel Davis

May 5, 2025

op-edUkraine‑Russia, Europe and Eurasia, Russia, Ukraine

Is Trump’s Peace Plan for Ukraine All That Bad?

By Daniel DePetris

May 2, 2025

op-edUkraine‑Russia, Europe and Eurasia, Russia, Ukraine

Trump’s Ukraine minerals agreement is a terrible deal for the US

By Daniel DePetris

May 1, 2025

Events on NATO

See All Events
virtualNATO, Alliances, Europe and Eurasia, Russia, Ukraine, Ukraine‑Russia

Past Virtual Event: A ‘bridge’ to NATO or false hope for Ukraine?

July 12, 2024
virtualNATO, Alliances, Deterrence, Europe and Eurasia, Nuclear weapons

Past Virtual Event: New York for Paris? NATO and extended deterrence in a new nuclear age

July 2, 2024
virtualNATO, Europe and Eurasia, Russia, Ukraine

Past Virtual Event: Reexamining the U.S. role in European security

May 3, 2024

Receive expert foreign policy analysis

Join the hub of realism and restraint

Expert updates and analysis to enhance your understanding of vital U.S. national security issues

Defense Priority Mono Logo

Our mission is to inform citizens, thought leaders, and policymakers of the importance of a strong, dynamic military—used more judiciously to protect America’s narrowly defined national interests—and promote a realistic grand strategy prioritizing restraint, diplomacy, and free trade to ensure U.S. security.

  • About
  • For Media
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Contact
© 2025 Defense Priorities All Right Reserved