Finnish President Alexander Stubb suggested that Ukraine should be granted de facto NATO membership, meaning that if Russia violates a future ceasefire or launches another attack, Ukraine would immediately become a member of the alliance.
“Why not give them de facto NATO membership, meaning that when negotiations succeed and a peace deal is signed, if Russia breaks that agreement, Ukraine automatically joins NATO?” Stubb stated in an interview with CNN, as reported by Digi24.
He described the proposal as a strong safety net to ensure Russia adheres to any peace deal.
[…]
This idea was originally introduced by U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham at the Munich Security Conference in February. Graham, a close ally of Trump, argued that while immediate NATO accession might not be possible for Ukraine, a clear deterrent must be established.
[…]
A European summit on Ukraine is set to take place in Brussels this week, where defense cooperation will be a key topic.
[…]
Although Finland’s proposal may face resistance, it signals growing European willingness to support Ukraine in deterring future Russian aggression.
If implemented, it could reshape NATO’s strategy and reinforce the West’s commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty.
A much easier solution would surely be to offer the EU mutual defence clause which is stronger than article 5 of the NATO treaty.
It’s going to be Europe on it’s own anyway and we all know it.
NATO will probably need Ukraine at least as much as Ukraine needs NATO. If Russia invaded the Suwalki Gap or Gotland, beating them back would be a lot harder without Ukrainian expertise. And keeping them out in the first place will be easier with Ukraine on board.
What’s the difference to an actual NATO membership?
If they joined immediately, NATO would have to directly engage Russia now – which would be bad, especially with the US being shitty right now.
If they predicate membership on a Russian attack it will defer and potentially remove that risk. Seems like a solid idea to me.
It’s a solid start, but it really should just be predicated on a peace deal itself as the disqualification logic used before isn’t applicable at that point. Joining NATO should always be done in peace time, including before and not at the start of the inevitable subsequent war with Russia.
Inthe case of the actual membership, members would be obligated to do at least something when Russia attack. In the case of fiction membership NATO might just budapesht-memorandum around.
NATO allies are expected to standardize their military equipment and processes to some extent, so they can interoperate with each other. This is why there’s NATO standard ammunition, and why the US military does a lot of stuff in metric.
One non-dirty-tricks reason to do this would be to give Ukraine ample time to get all that administrative stuff in order.
Heheheehehe
Bacause in the case of “Future Russian Aggression” NATO will find literally THOUSANDS reasons why Ukraine can’t join or why that “Agression” isn’t agressive enough to call the 5th article.
I don’t see Putin ever agreeing to this but maybe I’m too pessimistic
With 3 years to prepare and plenty of time to further undermine the US, UK and EU from the inside, he might agree to it. The most important part of NATO is already working for him, threatening allies, influencing elections, spreading misinformation.
Russia is not part of NATO.
I’m well aware but still he’ll try to make Ukraine’s neutrality a condition for any peace negotiations.
I think that’s the point of drawing a line in the sand. Step over it and this will happen. It’s risky and timing would be of the essence.
