Is NATO to blame? Was the Russian invasion of Ukraine instigated by pending NATO membership?

North American Media headlines on the Ukraine - Russia conflict have focused on President Vladimir Putin’s determination to regain control over the post-soviet region. But consider this- what if there are other players also at fault? Are we too quick to frame the Russians as villains? Is it possible that the allies, specifically the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), hold more responsibility for this conflict than we are comfortable admitting?

While a nationalist agenda is likely part of the reason Russia chose to attack Ukraine, it is hard to deny that the invasion was a reaction to Ukraine’s pending NATO membership. The possibility of military partnership has created a race of sorts. If Russia could create conflict in Ukraine before NATO solidified their partnership, the membership would be blocked. Moreover, the drawn-out, un-motivated efforts made by NATO to formally adopt Ukraine as a member left the country at high-risk and vulnerable to a Russian counter.

NATO has an ‘open door’ membership policy, available to any European state who is in a position to further NATO’s key principles, such as democracy and the peaceful resolution of disputes. However, NATO claims that this policy should not be seen as a threat to non-member countries, but as a tool to promote stability and peace.

Russia does not agree with this claim. They have expressed on multiple occasions that the expansion of NATO into post-soviet countries threatens Russian security. This is understandable, considering NATO was created with a goal of countering Russian power and ideology. NATO moving into the post-soviet region not only limits Russia's power to work politically with neighboring states, but also creates a risk of going toe-to-toe with some of the largest military powers in the world. If you were Russia, would you want a major military alliance that promotes opposing political systems and values moving into your backyard?

While it is true that countries interested in joining NATO should have the option to pursue membership no matter where they are geographically located; where NATO has gone wrong is in its process. The lengthy membership process, beginning with a formal invitation from NATO, can take years to complete and often leaves hopeful states vulnerable. This creates a window of opportunity for states threatened by NATO enlargement to intervene and stop accession without facing the power of NATO’s military force.

NATO and Ukraine have had an ongoing cooperative relationship since the 1990s, intensifying with the 2014 Russian invasion. Ukraine has expressed interest in membership multiple times, and NATO has continually promised eventual membership status, for example, at the 2008 Bucharest summit. In 2019 Zelenskyy adopted a constitutional amendment committing Ukraine to pursue NATO membership, proving that the country was taking this process seriously. Since then, Ukraine has pursued various reforms to meet NATO membership standards - but members argue that it is not enough.

Since Russia’s 2022 invasion, Zelensky has publicly pushed for fast-tracked accession. It has become clear that although NATO has provided unprecedented support to Ukrainian forces, they are unwilling to bring Ukraine in as a member while active conflict occurs. This is partially due to article five implications, stating an attack on one member shall be seen as an attack on all members.

As Putin has said “No Russian leader could stand idly by in the face of steps toward NATO membership for Ukraine, that would be a hostile act toward Russia.” While Ukraine’s NATO membership may not have been promised, Russia felt threatened enough by their partnership to wage war to prevent, or at least slow, further ties. Russia would rather wage war now, than wait and attempt negotiations with Ukraine backed by NATO, later. The Ukraine invasion speaks to a larger problem in the NATO membership process. When potential alliances are broadcasted to the world, or strung out over time, it allows other states the opportunity to intervene and block the agreements. The same situation happened with Georgia in 2008. Russia invaded after NATO stated its intent to admit membership. In short, NATO needs to re-evaluate its membership process.

Today, NATO continues to be divided on how, when, and even if Ukraine should be officially invited to join NATO. We know for sure there will be no agreements until the conflict is over. When dealing with Russian forces, NATO needs to proceed with caution. It isn’t the lives of the NATO members but those who wish to join in the balance. If NATO is not interested in admitting a country, NATO needs to make that clear rather than putting it at risk. They cannot play around when lives are at risk.

Hailey Jarvis is a Master’s student at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy.