Backstopping Ukraine’s Long-Term Security: An Alternative to NATO Membership

Lise Morjé Howard & Michael O’Hanlon

Source Link

Ukraine faces serious immediate challenges on the battlefield today; in-mid May, Putin declared that Russian forces are “improving their positions each day, on all fronts, according to plan.” The Russian wartime economy is gathering steam while Western resolve remains uncertain. Ukrainians will continue to fight fiercely, but Russia’s war machine is taking its toll. Thus, Ukraine’s first order of business is to defend itself and its territory and people.

Yet even so, other big questions loom, and it is not too soon to think about how the war might be ended and Ukraine’s long-term security shored up. NATO’s security could also very well be directly affected by how this war ends. In particular, were Russia to defeat Ukraine comprehensively, it could then be in a position to threaten the Baltic states and beyond (Putin has claimed the right to “protect” Russian speakers in neighboring states and suggested that NATO should be rolled back to its 1997 membership.) These realities are reason enough for deep gratitude to the Ukrainians, who are doing the hard fighting to fend off Russian troops in an imperial-minded conflict that could easily extend further into Europe if not checked in Ukraine first.1 They are also an argument for increased US agency. After all, security in Europe is very much Washington’s business, as the United States discovered belatedly—and the hard way—twice in the 20th century.