Ukraine’s pursuit of NATO membership has assumed heightened strategic importance in response to Russia’s full-scale invasion and ongoing aggression. While formal accession remains a complex process, alliance members and Kyiv are finding key pathways to deepen Ukraine’s integration. These include the articulation of NATO membership as a long-term strategic objective in Ukraine’s constitution. The implementation of a robust interim security framework and the institutional elevation of Ukraine through the NATO–Ukraine Council, especially emphasizing the imperative of strategic clarity in alliance commitments. Additionally, the rejection of revisionist narratives concerning NATO enlargement is critical. This, along with the assertion of European leadership, reinforces collective security to ensure Ukraine’s sovereignty within a stable Euro-Atlantic order.

NATO Membership as a Strategic Objective

The enduring goal of Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic policy is full membership in NATO. Strategic assessments emphasize that no alternative security framework can offer comparable guarantees against Russian aggression. Ukraine has enshrined this aspiration in its constitution. Ukraine’s military has taken significant steps toward aligning its military structures with NATO standards. Russia’s full-scale invasion and occupation of parts of the country have only reinforced this goal in Kyiv and among its partners. Permanent deterrence depends on institutional integration into the alliance.

Nevertheless, the path to membership remains complex and politically sensitive. Catherine Sendak and Ilya Timtchenko explain that, “Ukraine’s situation is critical for NATO’s future… demanding renewed and sustainable political will from a nation worn down by casualties, hardship, and relentless stress, as well as from NATO members and partners who may be distracted by domestic and global challenges.”

NATO allies have stated that they will support Ukraine’s “irreversible path to full Euro-Atlantic integration, including NATO membership.” However, the alliance has yet to offer a definitive timeline or invitation for accession due to the ongoing war. Even some NATO members have argued about potential escalation risks. This lack of clarity not only undermines Ukraine’s long-term planning but also weakens deterrence by signaling hesitation. Sam Greene emphasizes that “only a deep, foundational obligation to Ukraine can ensure that Ukraine and Europe itself are adequately defended against further or renewed aggression.” Therefore, while accession is the strategic endpoint, immediate action is required to close the gap between aspiration and reality.

Bridging the Gap Between Kyiv and Brussels: Interim Security Framework

In light of the uncertainty around NATO accession, a structured interim framework is needed to support Ukraine’s defense needs. This must include the urgent delivery of advanced weapons systems, particularly in air defense and precision artillery. Additionally, a secure communication infrastructure and battlefield logistics are essential. These tools are crucial to Ukraine’s ability to repel further incursions and stabilize the frontlines.

Catherine Sendak and Ilya Timtchenko argue that “Ukraine has the second-largest military in Europe, which is battle-tested and innovative, proving its readiness and agility to respond to needs and evolve on the battlefield. It has the capacity to become a major security exporter — both of intelligence and military services and of arms production. Streamlining NATO-Ukraine standards will be in the interest of the alliance.”

The framework should also feature deeper integration of Ukrainian forces into NATO operational practices, including joint exercises, embedded training missions, and strategic planning cooperation to help build interoperability. They also demonstrate political solidarity. Defense industrial support is equally critical. Reducing bureaucratic hurdles, such as licensing and International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) restrictions, could further enhance production and international cooperation. It bolsters Ukraine’s domestic arms production and repair capacity, ensuring that the country can sustain long-term resistance without over-reliance on external supply chains.

Advancement NATO-Ukraine Partnership Through Institutional Mechanisms

Ukraine Defense Contact Group

The Ukraine Defense Contact Group, established in April 2022 at Ramstein Air Base, now brings together over 50 nations and the European Union monthly to coordinate military assistance to Kyiv. This coalition has created specialized “capability coalitions.” These cover air defense, artillery, armor, drones, demining, maritime security, IT, and integrated missile defense. These coalitions enhance both pooled procurement and task-sharing mechanisms.

While these institutional arrangements promote unity and operational aid, the remaining challenges include increased bureaucracy, an over-reliance on US leadership, and concerns about the long-term sustainability of the group. To overcome these challenges, the international donor community, Ukraine, and industry should establish a task force led by the US Security Assistance Group-Ukraine and International Donor Coordination Center teams to develop a road map for future needs.

NATO-Ukraine Council

The July 2023 creation of the NATO–Ukraine Council marked a significant institutional breakthrough. Unlike earlier formats, this mechanism grants Ukraine equal footing with NATO members in discussions and joint decision-making. It allows Ukraine to participate directly in shaping policy responses to security threats. Moreover, it enables real-time crisis coordination — an unprecedented step for a non-member state.

The Council also institutionalizes Ukraine’s de facto status as a frontline partner in European security. Through working groups, joint consultations, and operational dialogue, it creates a permanent political channel to advance defense cooperation. However, equal participation must be matched by strategic commitments. Without tangible defense guarantees, the Council risks becoming symbolic rather than transformative.

The Imperative of NATO Strategic Clarity

A central theme of NATO-Ukraine relations is the danger of strategic ambiguity. Vague commitments or delayed timelines for Ukraine’s membership create space for adversaries to exploit. This is particularly the case for Russian information operations. They often cite unsubstantiated claims that NATO agreed to halt expansion. By failing to clearly articulate the conditions and path for accession, NATO undermines its own credibility, as well as inadvertently signaling to Moscow that coercion may succeed.

Planning for Article 5 implementation while Ukraine is actively defending against Russia’s invasion must begin even before NATO grants formal membership. This may not mean immediate military guarantees granted by the North Atlantic Treaty, but rather a phased process of operational alignment, focusing on integration of command structures and scenario planning. Former US Ambassador to NATO Kurt Volker explains that Article 5 does not require NATO members to pledge ground forces to Ukraine immediately, and the article could be used to implement additional security steps, including:

• Maritime Demining: Western NATO nations could deploy or transfer mine-hunting vessels (especially unmanned vessels) to NATO members with a Black Sea coastline, as well as to Ukraine.
• Freedom of Navigation: NATO allies, both Black Sea littoral states and other members with significant naval capabilities, should establish a mission to support freedom of navigation in the Black Sea.
• No Limits on Particular Systems: Despite the massive US and allied support for Ukraine, there has been a sliding set of restrictions on Western military aid. NATO membership could reduce limitations on transfers of particular weapon systems from NATO allies to Ukraine.
• Participation in Air Defense for Humanitarian Purposes: NATO allies are already doing a significant amount to assist Ukrainian air defense, including providing a vast arsenal of layered air defense systems that are serving to protect civilians and infrastructure.

Amb. Volker explains, “These four steps – and perhaps others – could therefore become NATO’s Article 5 commitment to Ukraine – discussed and agreed within the NATO-Ukraine Council.” Such clarity would reinforce deterrence and stabilize the security environment. It would also send a powerful message of political resolve to both allies and adversaries.

Addressing Misconceptions on Alliance Provocation

A persistent narrative promoted by Russia and echoed by some Western voices claims that NATO’s post-Cold War enlargement provoked the current conflict. Strategic and historical evidence strongly refute this interpretation from Moscow, Beijing, and elsewhere. The voluntary aspirations of democratic states in Central and Eastern Europe drove NATO’s expansion following the collapse of communism and did not result in war at the time.

Moreover, the notion that Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic ambitions triggered the 2022 invasion is both factually and morally flawed. Russia’s military buildup and ideological hostility toward Ukrainian sovereignty began long before NATO membership was a serious prospect.

Maciej Bukowski argues that “It is madness to think that Europe’s security can be bought by appeasing Russian paranoia. Ukrainians are fighting for their identity and their future. If we Europeans wish for the same, we must be as determined as they are. We cannot kneel before the Kremlin.” Appeasing such revisionist claims would reward aggression and set a dangerous precedent for future crises.

European Leadership in the Interim

NATO’s consensus-based structure limits the speed of collective action. However, this provides European nations with an opportunity to lead during this critical period. Several member states, particularly in Central and Northern Europe, have provided robust support with weapons, training, and reconstruction aid. Expanding these efforts, either individually or through multilateral coalitions, can help fill gaps while NATO deliberates long-term plans.

Former commander of US Army Europe Ben Hodges, CEPA Fellow Alexander Crowther, and Lieutenant Colonel Jahara Matisek emphasize that, “As Ukraine fights for its survival, European leaders must ensure they are not merely spectators but active participants in shaping the security of their region. Without immediate and sustained military commitments, the very foundations of Europe are at risk. The time for debate has passed — Europe must act.”

European leaders must also reject any framing of Ukraine’s membership as a bargaining chip in negotiations with Russia. Strategic ambiguity serves only to embolden autocracies. Sustained assistance must support a credible path to NATO. Furthermore, a clear refusal to allow external actors to dictate alliance policy is essential.

Conclusion

Ukraine’s alignment with NATO is not just a strategic necessity for Kyiv. It is a defining test for the alliance’s credibility. The road to formal membership remains fraught, but the geopolitical stakes demand action now. Through a combination of interim security measures, institutional integration, and narrative clarity, Ukraine and its partners can chart a course toward lasting peace and shared security.

Michael Newton is the Deputy Director for communications and operations at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA).

CEPA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, public policy institution. All opinions expressed are those of the author(s) alone and may not represent those of the institutions they represent or the Center for European Policy Analysis. CEPA maintains a strict intellectual independence policy across all its projects and publications.