Askold S. Lozynskyj
November 7, 2024
According to Politico, seven NATO member countries remain hesitant to extend a membership invitation to Ukraine. Citing four anonymous U.S. and NATO officials and diplomats, Politico names the United States, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Slovenia, Hungary, and Slovakia as the primary holdouts.
Each of these countries has its own reasons for caution, yet the key to NATO’s decision-making lies in its rule of consensus. While some countries contribute more to NATO’s mission, each member has an equal say in inviting new members. Thus, every objection must be taken into account, regardless of military might or strategic value. The influence of the United States is paramount, yet even it cannot move forward without the cooperation of these smaller nations.
Hungary: A Reluctant Ally with an Autocratic Leader
Hungary, led by Viktor Orbán, is perhaps the most visibly reluctant NATO member. Orbán’s political trajectory has often placed him at odds with European and NATO standards, as his government has embraced populist policies, leading some to question Hungary’s loyalty to the alliance.
Having held power for fourteen years, Orbán has transformed Hungary’s political landscape, raising concerns about the country’s democratic health. During his current six-month term as President of the Council of the European Union—a largely symbolic role—his actions have stirred controversy across the continent.
Hungary is also currently under EU sanctions, which could serve as leverage. Past negotiations with Orbán have shown that financial incentives can influence Hungary’s stance, suggesting that with the right approach, his resistance to Ukraine’s NATO membership may be softened.
Slovakia: A New Issue on the Horizon
Slovakia, represented by Robert Fico, presents a more recent but still significant challenge. Although less overtly adversarial than Hungary, Fico’s government has shown a sympathetic stance towards Russia, though it is unlikely to result in full alignment with Moscow.
Slovakia’s recent history as a Soviet satellite, as well as its geographical proximity to Russia, shapes its foreign policy outlook. However, the reality of being within Russia’s potential sphere of influence means that Slovakia’s stance must balance any pro-Russian rhetoric with a genuine fear of potential threats. Slovakia’s limited military capabilities also make it a lesser contributor within NATO, raising questions about its own alignment with NATO’s objectives.
Slovenia: A Minor Player, Questionable Opposition
Slovenia, with a population of just two million, has made modest contributions to NATO missions, including the deployment of troops and vehicles in Afghanistan. Given its size, Slovenia’s influence within NATO is small, and it has no direct historical or strategic disputes with Ukraine. Politico did not elaborate on the rationale behind Slovenia’s hesitation, which may be more a matter of geographic and diplomatic alignment with nearby Hungary than any genuine opposition to Ukraine’s membership.
Slovenia’s role is limited, and its reservations are unlikely to significantly impact the decision if larger players like the United States or Germany choose to take a firm stance in favour of Ukraine.
Belgium: A Beneficiary of NATO’s Presence, Yet Reluctant
Belgium, as the host country for NATO’s headquarters, has arguably gained the most from its membership in the alliance. Yet, Belgium has been reluctant to make significant military commitments, even contributing minimal forces to NATO’s Afghanistan operations.
Belgium’s ongoing trade with Russia, despite EU sanctions, suggests that economic considerations may underlie its hesitancy to back Ukraine’s membership bid. While Belgium’s opposition is notable, the strategic importance of its role as NATO’s hub means that it could be encouraged to support Ukraine’s membership without fear of disruption to its central position within the alliance.
Temporary Obstacles?
Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Belgium may be temporary obstacles, susceptible to negotiation and persuasion. President-elect Trump, with his influence over these nations, may find the necessary leverage to bring them into alignment with a pro-Ukraine stance within NATO.
The Larger Players: United States, Germany, and Spain
The United States, Germany, and Spain form a curious group of larger NATO members expressing reservations. Paradoxically, these three countries are among the largest suppliers of military aid to Ukraine, highlighting a dissonance between their support for Ukraine’s defence and their reluctance to welcome it into NATO. Spain and Germany may be hiding behind the U.S. position, and thus their stance might shift if the United States were to openly support Ukraine’s accession. The real question is why the United States, which has led Ukraine’s military assistance efforts, appears hesitant to endorse full NATO membership.
For the United States, historical doctrines such as the Monroe Doctrine and outdated concepts of “balance of power” may continue to influence decision-makers. Under the Obama and Biden administrations, the U.S. foreign policy approach to Russia has often been cautious, even to the point of appearing appeasing. While these policies may have been rooted in a desire to avoid direct conflict with Russia, they have left Ukraine in a precarious position. Under President Biden, the U.S. has provided substantial military support, yet has been perceived as slow and overly cautious, much to Ukraine’s detriment.
A Call for U.S. Leadership
If President-elect Trump is inclined to assert a different approach, one that prioritises a strong stance against Russian influence, he could lead NATO in extending an invitation to Ukraine. This move would benefit NATO by adding Ukraine’s significant combat experience and robust military capabilities, while also reaffirming the alliance’s commitment to defend democratic nations under threat.
Such a decisive step could galvanise other members, particularly Germany and Spain, to align with a pro-Ukraine stance. By providing clear leadership, the U.S. could influence reluctant members, making it clear that NATO’s strength lies in its unity and that Ukraine’s inclusion would only bolster that unity.
In sum, President-elect Trump has a unique opportunity to shape the future of NATO. By bringing Ukraine into the fold, he could strengthen NATO’s eastern flank, increase security in the region, and offer Ukraine the solidarity it has long sought from the West. This challenge requires bold leadership, but it also presents a chance to redefine NATO’s future in the face of evolving global threats.
Askold S. Lozynskyj is a New York attorney and president of the Ukrainian Free University Foundation. He was president of the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America between 1992-2000 and president of the Ukrainian World Congress between 1998-2008.
