On 7 July, 2026, speaking at NATO’s
Summit Defense Industry Forum in Turkey, Ukrainian President Zelensky made the
case that Ukraine should be in the NATO military alliance even though that
country was still being invaded by Russia, so the activation of the alliance’s article
5’s mutual-defense mandate would be dicey to say the least. Accepting an
existing “hot spot” into the alliance would be risky not least because of any
immediate expectations of having to join a fight already in progress, but also
because of what Russia’s President Putin’s reaction might be. Zelensky’s remarks
can thus be regarded as partial, or one-sided, from the standpoint of a full
geo-political and military-strategic analysis.
Not coincidentally just ahead
of the full NATO meeting, Zelensky claimed that the Ukrainian military had
become a “source of extraordinary defensive capability” in Europe due to the
country’s rapid advance in military technology involving drones.[1]
Ukraine had even become a provider of advanced drone technology as Gulf states
sought it to intercept Iranian missiles. “We have completely eliminated the very
idea of Russia having a strategic rear,” Zelensky said.[2]
One day earlier, according to Euronews, “Ukrainian forces carried out drone strike on an oil refinery in the city
of Omsk, hitting the country’s most important fuel production site more than
2,500km from the Russia-Ukraine border.”[3]
In his speech, Zelensky said of the successful military strike, “this is not an
exception. It’s the new reality and there is no major oil refinery left in Russia
that has not been struck by Ukraine.”[4]
Indeed, videos of Russians physically fighting at gas stations amid the
resulting gas shortage were being shared on social media around the world.
Nevertheless, U.S. President Trump had ruled out Ukraine joining the military alliance, though the interest of Middle Eastern countries in Ukraine’s drone technology to fight against Iran could find a receptive ear in the White House. Even though Trump had a reputation for engaging in transactional rather than transformational leadership, his opposition to Ukraine being in the alliance could stem from concern as to how the sitting Russian president might react. The invasion was at least in part motivated out of concern that Ukraine would bring NATO to Russia’s door step. Were this to become a reality, Putin might decide to reinvigorate his invasion rather than sue for peace. Rather than joining a Western military alliance, Ukraine could strike a good compromise with Russia by becoming a state in the European Union, which is a political union that is economically rather than militarily oriented, unlike the United States. Furthermore, Putin had little to fear in 2026 from a coordinated and concerted E.U. military intervention in Ukraine, given the veto power retained by the states in the European Council and the Council of the E.U. due to the principle of unanimity applying in matters of defense and foreign policy. That the E.U. had outgrown every state government holding a potential veto, the internal resistance to even necessary reform of the E.U. could be counted on to hold the union back from being a united military threat to Russia.
In short, Russia’s President Putin would be more comfortable with the E.U. moving eastward, as the U.S. moved westward in the nineteenth century, than with Ukraine joining an international military alliance. To the extent that President Trump’s objection to Ukraine joining NATO was based on how Putin would be likely to react, and that Ukraine could become an E.U. state instead, Zelensky’s speech can be viewed as one-sided, and thus as vulnerable to its blind side. In fact, if the first President Bush had promised Russia that reunifying Germany would not result in NATO reaching the Russian border, Putin could become especially obstinate were Ukraine to become a member of the Western military alliance because that would mean that the U.S. will have reneged on its promise. It is best not to provoke a bear even with passive aggression. Were NATO to enter Ukrainian territory militarily to fight against the invasion directly, active aggression would be overlaid on the passive aggression that is inherent to reneging unilaterally on a promise without cause. Zelensky’s citing of the utility to NATO that Ukraine could bring to the alliance in terms of military technology “on the cutting edge” can therefore be viewed as missing the big picture in which Ukraine and NATO can be situated even including an historical context. Whereas narrow, “valued added” utility may suffice for a private business, the political domain is much broader.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
