The Economist advocates NATO membership as Ukraine’s best security guarantee

NATO membership is the most effective strategy to secure Ukraine’s future, counter Russian aggression, and promote European stability, according to a recent article by The Economist.

The editorial argues that joining NATO would protect Ukraine from political instability and the risk of being co-opted by Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose overarching goal is to weaken and dominate Europe.

NATO membership, according to the analysis, would integrate Ukraine’s formidable military and defence capabilities into the alliance. With Europe’s largest and most experienced army now battle-hardened by over two years of war, Ukraine could significantly bolster NATO’s collective defence while reducing its dependence on US military resources. This prospect aligns with former US President Donald Trump’s calls for a more self-reliant NATO that demands less from American forces.

However, the article acknowledges the considerable challenges to Ukraine’s accession. NATO’s Article 5 commitment, which ensures collective defence for all member states, presents a complex issue, particularly regarding Ukrainian territories currently occupied by Russia. Drawing on historical precedents such as West Germany’s NATO membership in 1955, The Economist suggests that a partial guarantee—excluding occupied territories—could offer a viable compromise.

The editorial also notes political obstacles within NATO itself, as unanimous approval from all 32 member states is required for Ukraine’s membership. Countries like Hungary and Turkey, which have delayed the accession of Sweden and Finland, may pose similar challenges. In light of these hurdles, the piece highlights alternative strategies, such as deploying bilateral "tripwire forces" from NATO members to act as a deterrent against further Russian aggression.

The Economist emphasizes that any security guarantees, whether through NATO or alternative arrangements, must be credible. This would necessitate formal backing from the United States, even under a potential Trump administration, and a robust European commitment to defence spending, military modernization, and financial support for Ukraine’s reconstruction.

According to the article, there are growing concerns that former President Donald Trump may push for a peace deal with Russia that could have devastating consequences for Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin has suggested he might be open to freezing front lines, despite Russia occupying 70-80% of four Ukrainian provinces it has annexed. However, Putin is demanding significant concessions, including the lifting of Western sanctions, Ukraine’s renouncement of NATO membership, its demilitarization, and political neutrality. He also insists Ukraine "denazify" itself by removing its current leadership and protecting the rights of Russian speakers.

If Trump supports such a deal, critics warn that it would grant Russia most of its war objectives, resulting in a catastrophic defeat for Ukraine. Moreover, Putin is unlikely to honour any agreement, hoping that a post-war Ukraine, weakened by internal divisions and frustration with the West, would eventually fall under Russian control. If not, Putin could further expand Russia’s territory by force, using the protection of Russian-speaking populations as a pretext.

The report concludes that Ukraine’s integration into NATO or equivalent security frameworks is essential not just for its sovereignty but for the broader stability of Europe. Failure to secure Ukraine risks fulfilling Putin’s ambitions, while a credible security guarantee could enable the nation to rebuild, deter future aggression, and thrive as a key player in European security architecture.