Kyiv and the alliance have never been closer, yet membership is still out of reach
Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president, speaks to MPs and Mark Rutte (far left), Nato’s secretary-general, on March 17 Credit: Jonathan Brady/Pool via Reuters
Ukraine’s ambassador to Nato
Published 28 March 2026
To get from the Mission of Ukraine to Nato to Nato’s HQ today, it should be enough to just cross the road. That’s how it looks on the map. In reality, you have to make your way through a large construction site that has blocked all access routes to the Mission building, and then navigate a maze of confusing interchanges and crossings. This roughly reflects where Ukraine stands today in its relations with Nato.
It seems very close – “just across the road.” My colleagues can see the headquarters and the flags of the Allies from their windows.
And indeed, Ukraine and Nato have never been this close, neither in terms of political interaction nor practical co-operation. Never has the dialogue been as intense and as trust-based as it is today. At the same time, complex junctions, old and new constructions, continue to reliably keep Ukraine outside the Alliance.
When you constantly work at Nato – as I have for the past seven months – the sense of injustice feels especially acute. The injustice regarding Ukraine’s status. That Ukraine is still a partner, but not a member of the Alliance. That your country is not at the table. That you constantly have to invent formats and occasions to convey Ukraine’s position to Allies and better understand their approaches. Fortunately, there are a number of countries that already psychologically perceive Ukraine as an invisible Nato member and are themselves offering constant communication or even co-ordination. “Your rightful place is at the table of the North Atlantic Council,” some colleagues from member states tell me.
The feeling of injustice intensifies when you realise the real reason Ukraine is still not in the Alliance. And that reason is the painful imperial fantasies of the man in the Kremlin, which for decades have forced Allies on both sides of the Atlantic to reject the very idea of Kyiv’s membership in Nato – under other, of course, more noble pretexts, such as insufficient anti-corruption reforms or simply a “lack of consensus”.
In reality, just like the construction site between the Mission of Ukraine and Nato HQ, the impossibility of Ukraine’s membership in Nato in the foreseeable future is merely a political construct. Nothing more, nothing less. It can be endlessly reinforced, or it can be dismantled very quickly.
The problem is that there is always someone who reinforces it, strengthens it with additional layers – instead of dismantling the very foundation on which this construct rests. And it rests on three major myths that Russia has successfully embedded in many capitals around the world. All of these myths are baseless, and Russia itself has already disproven them, yet they continue to exist independently in the offices of those who make or influence decisions.
First, the myth that Moscow was promised that Nato would not expand in the future, because Nato’s presence near Russia’s borders allegedly threatens its security interests. In reality – no. The last leader of the USSR, to whom this was supposedly promised by Washington, personally denied this in an interview with German media. Moreover, Russia, which fears proximity to the Alliance so much, is itself trying to do everything possible to bring its borders closer to Nato. At the cost of 200 Russian soldiers killed per square kilometre – more than 30,000 troops per month – it is trying to push the front line in Ukraine westward, toward Nato’s borders, not the other way around.
Second, the myth that if Ukraine becomes a Nato member, Russia will go to war against it. The fact is that Russia first attacked Ukraine militarily precisely when Ukraine, under pressure from Moscow, adopted legislation on a non-aligned (neutral) status and had no intention of joining Nato. Even Henry Kissinger, who for a long time believed Ukraine should not be invited to Nato to avoid Russian aggression, acknowledged after the full-scale invasion started that there were no longer any restrictions on Ukraine’s membership.
Moreover, it is quite clear: if Russia truly cared about its own security interests rather than destroying Ukraine and restoring an empire, it would itself be most interested in Ukraine being in the Alliance and co-ordinating its actions toward Russia with Nato. Given Ukraine’s experience and technologies, and the fact that no region of Russia is now safe from Ukrainian long-range capabilities – as recently admitted even by Sergey Shoigu, Russia’s security council secretary – this argument becomes even stronger. Ukraine in Nato would be a far better security guarantee for Russia than a Ukraine acting entirely independently in responding to threats coming from Moscow.
Third, the myth that Russia launched its full-scale war because Ukraine was promised Nato membership. In reality, the Biden Administration was strongly against inviting Ukraine to Nato, hiding behind the contrived argument of corruption. Russia started the war because it wanted – and still wants – to destroy Ukraine, eliminate Ukrainian statehood, and erase Ukrainian identity, not because it feared Ukraine’s Nato membership. Membership in Nato is unacceptable to Russia not because it threatens it, but because it complicates the task of destroying Ukraine and restoring an empire. Ukraine’s Nato membership would be the clearest signal – along with EU membership – to Russian elites and society that Ukraine will never again become part of any version of a Russian empire. It is hard to understand why this is so difficult to grasp: Ukraine’s non-membership in Nato is not Russia’s goal in the war. It is merely a tool to achieve its real goal of destroying Ukraine.
Finally, the sense of injustice grows when you realise that you represent Ukraine at Nato not simply as a country that has been knocking on the Alliance’s door for years – or decades. You represent Ukraine that has never before been capable of making such a contribution to Euro-Atlantic security as it can today. And as the demand for Ukrainian expertise and defence technologies from Gulf countries shows – including those where Ukrainian specialists are already working on counter-drone systems – not only Euro-Atlantic security.
Let’s be honest: today Ukraine, by holding back Russia on the battlefield, is the only country that is actually implementing Nato’s Strategic Concept, where Russia is identified as the most direct and significant threat. And it does so without even having a clear membership perspective.
Ukraine not only de facto implements this Strategic Concept, but can also significantly help Nato to implement it in the most effective and cost-efficient way.
The effective participation of Ukrainian military personnel as a “red team” in Nato exercises is just one small example of how Ukraine can help Nato prepare for future confrontation. A battle-hardened, million-strong army, Ukrainian defence technologies and innovations – this is what could significantly strengthen Nato, not weaken it. And as a European Nato takes shape, Ukraine could become one of its key pillars.
Although the issue of security guarantees for Ukraine remains acute, and Article 5 continues to be a desired goal – whether within Nato or through bilateral arrangements with Nato member states led by the United States – the truth is that Ukraine itself is becoming a potential security guarantor for countries that particularly need Ukrainian expertise and skills to be ready to repel aggression in modern technological warfare involving drones and robotic systems.
For the fifth year in a row, Ukraine has been the shield of Europe. But in reality, Ukraine deserves to be the sword of Europe.
And the sword of Nato.
Alyona Getmanchuk is the head of the Mission of Ukraine to Nato
A reminder of what Quentin Letts said about Nato :
“The bus load of bespectacled accountants that passes for the leadership of Nato.”
Full quote :
“In his unsteady English, Volodymyr Zelensky communicated clearly why the ayatollahs in Iran are a threat to our security. He used no cliches. He did not waffle. He just spat it out. He also offered a sense of hope that has so far been lacking from the egomaniacal Dr Strangelove in the White House and the busload of bespectacled accountants that passes for the leadership of Nato. Morality and hope will always, eventually, triumph over the malice and despair of Moscow and Tehran.”
Nato was formed as a military alliance with one purpose: to prevent numerically superior Warsaw Pact forces from seizing yet more European land.
The British Army of the Rhine was 60,000 strong in the 1950’s and was armed with independent ground-launched tactical nukes. The U.S. probably had more.
The U.K.’s independent strategic nukes were carried by Vulcan bombers.
Both were decommissioned and replaced by the U.S. Trident system.
A hostile U.S. president could render them dysfunctional.
So we must address that matter urgently.
The new reality of the foul trumputler alliance means that a new military bloc must be formed that consists entirely of countries that will fight putlerstan and has the capability to do so.
I’d make Ukraine the senior service, arm it to the teeth and put a Ukrainian General in overall command.
The first task would be to set up a NFZ, occupy Ukraine and drive all the putinaZi vermin out.
“Second, the myth that if Ukraine becomes a Nato member, Russia will go to war against it. The fact is that Russia first attacked Ukraine militarily precisely when Ukraine, under pressure from Moscow, adopted legislation on a non-aligned (neutral) status and had no intention of joining Nato.”
France and Germany kept Ukraine and Georgia out. Biden and Trump continued and now Orbanistan and Ficostan are still allowed as members.
Nato is dead.
“Russia started the war because it wanted – and still wants – to destroy Ukraine, eliminate Ukrainian statehood, and erase Ukrainian identity, not because it feared Ukraine’s Nato membership. Membership in Nato is unacceptable to Russia not because it threatens it, but because it complicates the task of destroying Ukraine and restoring an empire. Ukraine’s Nato membership would be the clearest signal – along with EU membership – to Russian elites and society that Ukraine will never again become part of any version of a Russian empire.”
Exactly right.
Unfortunately the ambitions of Krasnov coincide with those of his controller.
Keeping powerful Ukraine from becoming a member of NATO would be a colossal strategic mistake.
But I think we are pretty used to the West screwing things up for itself, and this concerns many military, social, and political aspects. Greed and fear also play a big role in Europe’s star sinking.