Ukraine's leading English-language newspaper since 1995

Participants of a rally organized by pro-Russian political parties are burning NATO flags in Simferopol, Crimea’s capital, in this file Feb. 23, 2009, photo. The prospect of Ukraine joining the military alliance is a divisive one in Ukraine, but most peop UNIAN Stephen Martinko and Emily Boening write that NATO should remain committed to having Ukraine within its ranks one day.

As U.S. President Barack Obama moves forward with his pledge to “reset” relations with Russia, the United States faces mounting pressure to betray the ambitions of our allies who aspire to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Ukraine in particular, to appease the rumbling Russian bear. We must not give in.

NATO enlargement and engagement with Ukraine has enjoyed strong bipartisan support in Congress and from current and previous administrations. Leaders on both sides of the political spectrum in the United States, NATO and Ukraine have worked together toward freedom, democracy and collective security. Should the United States withdraw the prospect of NATO accession from Ukraine in response to bellicose Russian rhetoric, we risk jeopardizing hard earned post-Cold War progress toward these goals with Ukraine, an important ally. Such actions would also undermine long-standing policies leaving NATO’s door open to any European county in a position to undertake the commitments and obligations of membership and contributing to security in the Euro-Atlantic area.

Before President Obama, Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush also strongly supported Ukraine’s accession to NATO. The promise of a path forward is integral to NATO’s “open door” policy. We applaud the Obama administration’s reaffirmation of support for alliance aspirants such as Ukraine and the strong statements of support from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vice President Joseph Biden.

Should the United States revoke the possibility of NATO accession to Ukraine, we do not only close the door to an ally that, of the former Soviet republics, is one of the closest to meeting NATO standards. We also destabilize the prospects of other countries with whom the United States has an interest in strengthening democracy, rule of law and security relationships.

If Ukraine is not allowed to proceed forward on the path to NATO accession, we face immediate security concerns. By breaking our commitment to Ukraine, we would risk losing the trust of other nations and, with it, the power to influence by “carrot,” leaving nothing but an arsenal of “sticks.” This breach of faith could extend to countries such as Georgia that see themselves, in part due to American cues, as soon eligible for NATO accession. By breaking our word to Ukraine, our ability to encourage there and elsewhere with incentives will be severely weakened, opening the door to increased Russian influence.

This administration, and future administrations, must stand firm in the face of intense Russian rhetoric regarding Ukraine’s aspirations toward NATO membership. Russian leaders, including Vladimir Putin, have threatened that Ukraine would cease to exist if she joined NATO and that Russia will do all that it can to prevent Ukrainian membership. While the U.S. is an ocean away from the threat of Russian neo-imperialist invasion, our allies in Central and Eastern Europe are dangerously within striking distance. Last year, the Russian Army invaded Georgia and has not withdrawn her soldiers. Additionally, Russian furor over the now abandoned plans for missile defense in Poland may embolden future demands.

We acknowledge that the United States and NATO need to foster better partnerships with Russia, especially with regard to Iran, oil pipelines and a number of other important issues. However, the Obama administration must resist demands from Russia to weaken U.S. support for Ukraine. If the United States turns a blind eye to, or worse, incentivizes Russian intimidation, we risk returning to constant Russian interference in the affairs of her border states and the stifling of progress towards democracy, rule of law, security, and peace in the region. Such actions would also undermine Europe’s security as a whole, alienate key allies, and destroy America’s moral integrity regarding long-standing policies supporting freedom, democracy, and free markets. Allowing Russia to veto Ukrainian membership would undermine NATO’s founding treaty and set a tremendously disruptive precedent.

We must continue to stand by Ukraine’s path to accession to an alliance aimed at promoting stability and cooperation. In doing so, we recommit ourselves to NATO’s goals of peace, democracy and common values. To allow Russia to control the situation would squander a unique opportunity to improve security in the entire Euro-Atlantic area.


Stephen Martinko, a Republican, was a summer 2009 Partnership for a Secure America congressional fellow and is a graduate student at the National Defense University College of International Security Affairs. He can be reach at stephenmartinko@yahoo.com. Emily Boening, a former Democratic congressional staff member, was a summer 2009 Partnership for a Secure American Congressional Fellow and is a first year student at the University of Michigan Law School. She can be reach at eboening@umich.edu