In return, in an international agreement, the so-called The Budapest Memorandum (1994)
Russia, the USA and the United Kingdom undertook to respect the sovereignty of
Ukraine. However, at the latest, with the Russian annexation of the Ukrainian
peninsula of Crimea in 2014, it became clear that the security guarantees were
worth nothing. Many Ukrainian politicians and military officers bitterly
regretted the abandonment of nuclear weapons.It has become all the more urgent
for Kiev to seek protection from NATO, especially West-oriented President
Viktor Yushchenko since he took office in 2005. Yushchenko was not received in
Brussels with open arms. Although cooperation has grown significantly since the
conclusion of the NATO-Ukraine Charter (1997), Brussels was highly critical of
full membership.
In 1999 and 2004, many countries of the former Warsaw Pact, a military alliance led by the
Soviet Union, including former Soviet republics and the Baltic states, have
already joined NATO.
In the run-up to their accession, many US military, diplomats and security experts
described the accession offers in an open letter to then US President Bill
Clinton as "a political mistake of historic importance." Nevertheless, there was an accession.
Opposition by even one of the existing NATO members would make it impossible to implement them. It was US President George W. Bush who believed that he could use the
favor of a relatively weak Russia to expand NATO even further east. Bush made
this proposal at the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest. "We must make it clear
that NATO welcomes Ukraine and Georgia's efforts to join NATO and offers them a
clear path to achieve this goal," he said, addressing Russian President
Vladimir Putin, "The Cold War is over."
Putin was furious: "We consider the emergence of a military bloc on our borders,
whose membership obligations include Article 5, as a direct threat to our
country's security." In retrospect, it is astonishing what the current CIA
director and then US ambassador to Moscow, William Burns, wrote in a warning to
the Bush administration. Joining NATO "would prepare a fertile ground for
Russian intervention in Crimea and eastern Ukraine." About six years
later, this is exactly what happened without Ukraine joining NATO.
Ultimately, however, it was others who prevented accession, most notably the then German
Chancellor Angela Merkel and the French President Nicolas Sarkozy. They also
wanted not to unnecessarily irritate Russia and not risk destabilizing Eastern
Europe.Merkel also pointed out that membership was controversially discussed by
the Ukrainian population. It has not changed to this day. In a poll conducted
in December 2021, only 54 percent were in favor of joining NATO. Merkel said
then that it was too early for membership, but "There is no doubt that
both countries (Ukraine and Georgia.) Have accession prospects." The door
remains open.Accession to NATO as enshrined in the constitutionIn Ukraine
itself, there have been ups and downs in membership since then.
 After assuming power in 2010, President Viktor Yanukovych declared that Ukraine wanted to be a non-aligned country and saw itself as "a bridge between Russia and the EU". He explicitly
rejected NATO membership.
Then, during the Crimean crisis in 2014, President Petro Poroshenko pushed to join
NATO if the people agreed to it in a referendum.Then, during the Crimean crisis
in 2014, President Petro Poroshenko pushed to join NATO if the people agreed to
it in a referendum. Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the then German foreign minister
and now the president of Germany, responded with the words: "You should be
careful not to add fuel to the fire with certain decisions."
In June 2017, the Ukrainian parliament recognized membership in NATO as the country's foreign policy goal, and in February 2019, the goal of joining NATO and the EU
was even included in the constitution.
NATO also officially granted Ukraine candidate status in 2018. The statement said:
"NATO's door is open to any European country able to fulfill its membership obligations and responsibilities and contribute to the security of the Euro-Atlantic area."
However, the last point in particular can be interpreted in such a way that the existing
conflict with Russia does not contribute to security in the Euro-Atlantic area. In any case, Ukraine is not one centimeter closer to accession, and not despite, but precisely because of the threat of a Russian invasion. The basic rule in NATO is not to admit a new member that is in a conflict situation.
This, in turn, gives President Putin an advantage: by fueling the conflict, he can keep
Ukraine outside NATO. He recently warned again about the danger of a war between Russia and NATO if Ukraine, as an Alliance member, tries to take away Crimea: "There will be no winners," Putin said.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg reiterated in mid-January on ZDF the official position of the Alliance that every country has the right to choose an alliance: “We are not ready to compromise on the basic principles of European security. And this is, at least, the right of each country to define its own path. "
Chancellor Olaf Scholz is also in favor of this, as is Angela Merkel, who always spoke of
an open door. But this is true, at best, in the distant future. Scholz said recently that Ukraine's membership of NATO is not on the agenda right now.
Is this the end of dreams? German diplomat Christoph Heusgen, the future head of the Munich Security Conference, said in an interview with the Reuters news agency that one
cannot "politically and morally" justify depriving Ukraine of the prospect of accession. Heusgen believes that there is also a need to think about the post-Putin times. - Perhaps Putin's successor will soon say: "I want, also in the competition with China, to lean more on Europe, on the international democratic and legal order." In such a situation, Ukraine
could become a member of NATO. Heusgen went even further, saying: "If Russia wants to, then so could it."