Key Points and Summary – Ukraine joining NATO would be viewed by Russia as an existential threat, likely triggering a severe and multifaceted military escalation that could lead to a broader European war.

-The Kremlin has consistently framed NATO’s eastward expansion as the primary justification for its aggression, meaning Kyiv’s accession would be a direct challenge to Russia’s perceived sphere of influence.

-While the West has a moral imperative to support Ukraine, a formal invitation to join the alliance must be carefully weighed against the very real risk of provoking a wider, more catastrophic conflict with a nuclear-armed Russia.

What if Ukraine Joins NATO? It Could Mean War

As the geopolitical landscape continues to shift, a pressing question emerges: What would happen if Ukraine were to join NATO, particularly if a Democrat occupies the White House and Washington formally backs Kyiv’s membership?

The Ukraine Question and NATO

The implications of such a move are profound, especially given the historical context of Russia’s aggression. One must anticipate a vehement response from Moscow, as the very reason Russia invaded Ukraine in the first place was to prevent NATO’s eastward expansion. Thus, the idea of Ukraine becoming a NATO member is not merely a diplomatic maneuver; it is a direct challenge to Russia’s sphere of influence and a potential catalyst for further conflict.

The Kremlin has long viewed NATO as a threat, a military alliance that encroaches upon its borders and undermines its authority in the region. Vladimir Putin’s narrative has consistently framed NATO expansion as an existential threat to Russia, a sentiment that resonates deeply within the Russian political landscape. The invasion of Ukraine in 2014 was, in many ways, a preemptive strike against what Moscow perceived as an encroaching Western influence.

The annexation of Crimea and the support for separatist movements in Eastern Ukraine were not just acts of aggression; they were calculated moves to reassert Russia’s dominance and to send a clear message: any attempt to integrate Ukraine into Western institutions would be met with severe consequences.

If the United States were to endorse Ukraine’s NATO membership, it would signal a dramatic shift in the West’s approach to Russia. Such a decision would not only solidify Ukraine’s alignment with the West but also represent a fundamental challenge to Russia’s strategic interests. The Kremlin would likely interpret this as a direct threat, prompting a range of aggressive responses. We should expect a multifaceted reaction from Moscow, including increased military posturing along its western borders, heightened cyber warfare, and potentially even direct military engagement in Ukraine.

Moreover, Russia’s historical playbook suggests that it would not shy away from using force to achieve its objectives. The Kremlin has demonstrated a willingness to escalate conflicts when it perceives its interests are at stake. The ongoing war in Ukraine is a testament to this reality.

If NATO were to extend an invitation to Ukraine, Russia might view this as a declaration of war, leading to a significant escalation in hostilities. The potential for a broader conflict in Eastern Europe would become alarmingly real, as Russia could mobilize its military assets in a show of force that would reverberate throughout the region.

However, while there are no legal barriers preventing NATO from admitting a new member state that is currently at war or has disputed borders, historical norms have evolved that would complicate Kyiv’s bid for membership. NATO has traditionally favored stability and security among its members, and admitting a country embroiled in conflict could set a challenging precedent. The alliance has generally sought to ensure that new members are in a position to contribute to collective defense without the immediate threat of conflict. This principle has been a guiding factor in NATO’s enlargement strategy, raising significant questions about the feasibility of Ukraine’s accession while it remains engaged in a war with Russia.

Additionally, the resistance from certain member states, such as Hungary, adds another layer of complexity to Ukraine’s aspirations. Hungary has expressed concerns over various political issues, including its grievances with Ukraine regarding minority rights and historical disputes. This internal dissent within NATO could hinder consensus on Ukraine’s membership, making it even more challenging for Kyiv to secure the necessary support. The combination of evolving norms and the opposition from existing member states creates significant hurdles for Ukraine as it seeks to join the alliance, regardless of the legal framework that technically allows for such an admission.

The implications of Ukraine’s potential NATO membership extend beyond the immediate military response. A NATO-backed Ukraine would likely prompt a reevaluation of security dynamics across Europe. Countries in Eastern Europe, particularly those that share borders with Russia, would find themselves in a precarious position. The specter of Russian aggression would loom larger, leading to increased military spending and a potential arms race in the region. NATO’s collective defense clause, Article 5, would come into play, obligating member states to respond to any aggression against Ukraine. This could draw the United States and its allies into a direct confrontation with Russia, a situation that could spiral out of control with catastrophic consequences.

Furthermore, the economic ramifications of such a shift cannot be overlooked. Russia has already faced significant sanctions due to its actions in Ukraine, but a formal NATO membership for Ukraine would likely lead to even harsher economic measures. The Kremlin would respond by doubling down on its efforts to undermine Western economies, using tools such as energy manipulation and cyberattacks. The potential for economic warfare would escalate, further straining relations between Russia and the West.

Russia Could Get More Agressive

In this context, it is crucial to consider the broader implications for global security. The world is already grappling with a range of challenges, including climate change and rising authoritarianism. A military confrontation between NATO and Russia over Ukraine would divert attention and resources away from these pressing issues. It would also set a dangerous precedent, signaling to other authoritarian regimes that aggressive actions can yield results. The international order, already fragile, would face further destabilization, with countries reassessing their alliances and security strategies in light of a more aggressive Russia.

So, how should the West navigate this treacherous terrain? While the moral imperative to support Ukraine is undeniable, the strategic calculus must also consider the potential geopolitical consequences of Ukraine’s admission to NATO. A nuanced approach is necessary, one that balances the need for solidarity with Ukraine against the risks of provoking a larger conflict. Diplomatic efforts must be prioritized, seeking to engage Russia in dialogue while simultaneously reinforcing Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

This does not mean abandoning the goal of NATO membership for Ukraine; instead, it calls for a more strategic and measured approach to achieving this goal. The West must be prepared to offer Ukraine robust support—military, economic, and diplomatic—while also exploring avenues for de-escalation with Russia. This could involve confidence-building measures, arms control agreements, and a renewed commitment to dialogue. The goal should be to create a security architecture in Europe that addresses the legitimate concerns of all parties involved, including Russia, while firmly supporting Ukraine’s right to self-determination.

Ukraine in NATO Could Spark a Crisis

In conclusion, the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO is fraught with peril, particularly in light of Russia’s historical response to perceived threats. A Democrat-led administration in Washington may be inclined to support Ukraine’s membership, but such a decision must be weighed against the potential for a hostile reaction from Moscow. The stakes are high, and the consequences of miscalculation could be dire. As we navigate this complex landscape, the West must remain steadfast in its support for Ukraine while also pursuing a path that seeks to avoid a catastrophic escalation of conflict.

The future of European security hangs in the balance, and the choices made today will resonate for generations to come.

About the Author: Dr. Andrew Latham

Andrew Latham is a non-resident fellow at Defense Priorities and a professor of international relations and political theory at Macalester College in Saint Paul, MN. You can follow him on X: @aakatham.

Military Matters

Russia’s Su-57 Felon Stealth Fighter Is a Waste of Rubles

America’s YF-23 Black Widow II Might Be Better Than F-22 

The Challenger 3 Tanks Could Be a Game Changer