
<p>In a <a href="https://punchingbagpost.com/what-biden-and-nato-should-have-done-about-putin/">recent commentary</a>, I itemized all things I would have done from the time Russian madman Vladimir Putin started surrounding Ukraine to today. ; I did omit one important action. ; I would have proposed that Ukraine be admitted to NATO before the invasion.</p>



<p>In fact, I had proposed bringing Ukraine into NATO even before President Zelenskyy’s election. ; Had we done that, there would not likely have been an invasion because of Article 5 that requires all NATO nations to come to the defense of any one member attacked by an aggressor.</p>



<p>Neither the Trump nor the Biden administrations pursued an invitation to Ukraine because they did not want to upset Putin. ; Trump’s Ukraine policy was prior to the invasion. ; For Trump it was a matter of maintaining the status quo. ; While Putin was occupying the Crimea and eastern Ukraine, there was no immediate fear of an all-out invasion. ; In fact, most of the folks in Washington did not believe there would be a full invasion until Putin started amassing troops on the Ukrainian border.</p>



<p>The Trump administration viewed the admission of Ukraine into NATO as provocative and destabilizing of the status quo. ; The Trump policy of maintaining the status quo carried over to the Biden Administration’s first year in office.</p>



<p>Then there was the buildup followed by the invasion.  ; That was the moment when Biden needed to change the policy and the rhetoric. ; NATO should have immediately accepted a request from Ukraine to join NATO. ; It certainly could not be accepted in time to prevent the invasion. ; But it would have sent a message to Putin that the United States and NATO considered Ukraine an important ally.</p>



<p>Biden, however, blinked. ; He signaled that the United States would not back the admission of Ukraine into NATO – even offering that up as a condition of a peaceful cease fire. ; If they believed that acquiescence to Putin on Ukraine joining NATO would have prevented an invasion, they should have known better. ; ;</p>



<p>In fact, they did know better. ; Even before the Russian military started to amass on three sides of Ukraine, western intelligence was aware of the planned invasion. ; Conceding Ukraine&#8217;s membership in NATO at that moment implied a lesser interest in the protection of Ukraine from Russian aggression. ; It was the wrong signal at the wrong time.  ; Along with his NATO concession to Putin, Biden’s public statements that we would not put boots on the ground in Ukraine – or send sophisticated weaponry – gave Putin a green light for his invasion.</p>



<p>So, now, what do we do?</p>



<p>Biden recently stated that it is not the time to talk about Ukraine joining NATO.  ; Technically, Biden is right. ; The process is too cumbersome to think Ukraine could become a member in the immediate future. ; Then there is the question of Article 5. ; As a NATO member, Ukraine would have the entire military force of the Alliance in action. ; I do not think that would have triggered a World War III since Putin has no allies on his side willing to fight for his stupid quest for a new Soviet Union.</p>



<p>But Biden&#8217;s tone was totally wrong. ; He basically dismissed the idea – implying that there was no reason to talk about it in the near future. ; He still seems to be holding it out as a concession in future peace negotiations.</p>



<p>I tend to agree with General Wesley Clark, who believes that we should tell Putin now &#8212; in no uncertain terms &#8212; that Ukraine will be in NATO in the future even if Putin maintains control of the Crimea and Donbass Region – and that is non-negotiable. ; As long as Putin thinks NATO membership is a bargaining chip, he will be encouraged to pursue his empire building ambitions.</p>



<p>Following Biden’s lead – unfortunately – NATO issued a statement supporting the POSSIBILITY of membership at some unspecified time in the future when unspecified conditions are met. ; That left open that Ukraine may never be invited to join the Alliance. ; It was less than a commitment. ; Ukrainian President Zelenskyy was not pleased. ; He called any language that did not include a time frame was “absurd.” ; In a tweet, Zelenskyy complained that the wording of the NATO statement was being discussed without the participation of Ukraine.</p>



<p>It was reported that Biden and the United States delegation were “furious” over Zelenskyy’s tweet. ; It was both courageous and correct to call out the NATO leadership – and the United States &#8212; for such a tepid and vague statement.</p>



<p>The consideration of Ukraine’s membership in NATO is another example of Biden’s too little/too late polices that have prevented an early Ukraine victory. ; Ukraine should be treated like Finland and Sweden – both of which got a quick assurance of membership at some point in the near future – as soon as any barriers or objections could be overcome. ; With the final agreement by Turkey to admit Sweden, the two Nordic nations are the newest members. ; That should be the same procedure applied to Ukraine – an assurance of future membership.</p>



<p>Ukraine needs to be in NATO – and NATO needs Ukraine as a critical member, giving the Alliance hundreds of more miles of border with Russia and access to the Azov Sea (which becomes an internal Russian body of water under the current occupation). ; It also gives NATO a greater strategic shoreline on the Black Sea. ; It brings enormous assets and natural resources to NATO.</p>



<p>Ukraine belongs in NATO asap … period.</p>



<p>So, there ‘tis.</p>

Ukraine Belongs in NATO
