Opinion | Only NATO membership can guarantee peace for Ukraine

Finally, bringing Ukraine into NATO is good not just for Ukraine; it is good for NATO, too. Ukraine now has the most capable, battle-hardened, NATO-interoperable military in Europe. Unlike some allies, it will have no trouble or hesitation meeting its NATO obligation to spend 2 percent of GDP on defense. It will be a net contributor to European security and thus strengthen the alliance.

So what are the next steps?

NATO leaders should approach the Vilnius summit as a two-part process. Part 1, in Vilnius, should be an unambiguous commitment by NATO, led by the United States, to invite Ukraine to join the alliance at the 75th-anniversary summit in Washington next summer. Then, NATO must create the security the alliance will guarantee, by spending the coming year helping Ukraine shape the conflict with Russia to a point where the invitation can safely be extended in 2024.

In shaping conditions on the ground, the United States’ objective should be to help Ukraine regain every inch of its territory as soon as possible. It is a mistake to think that a quick and decisive war creates any greater risk of escalation than a long, drawn-out stalemate. That means delivering all the weapons Ukraine is seeking to make its counteroffensive succeed — including long-range precision missiles, tanks and advanced fighter aircraft. Greater progress on the battlefield will bring the war to a point where a cease-fire is Russia’s only option — and Zelensky’s defense of his country is a clear success. Then, Ukraine can pivot to securing its military gains with NATO membership.

Some have suggested non-NATO alternatives for Ukraine’s long-term security. For example, they point out that America’s commitment to Israel is clear despite the absence of a mutual defense treaty that requires America to come to Israel’s defense. We would argue that Israel’s real deterrent is the perception by its adversaries that it possesses nuclear weapons. (Israel has never confirmed nor denied a nuclear capability.) Ukraine once had its own nuclear deterrent but relinquished the weapons at the insistence of the United States in the 1990s. Absent restoring that deterrent, the only thing that will prevent Russia from violating Ukraine’s sovereignty again is an Article 5 security guarantee from NATO.

Others say the United States could declare Ukraine a “Major Non-NATO Ally.” This would be nothing more than a symbolic gesture. MNNA status gives a designated country priority access to U.S. military equipment — something Ukraine already has in abundance — but does not entail any security commitments. It would amount to an empty promise, and Putin would conclude that the United States has blinked again.

If progress in retaking territory comes more slowly, and Ukrainian leaders feel confident they can continue to achieve their goals on the battlefield, NATO should support that decision. The alliance can issue a formal invitation to membership at the Washington summit but wait to ratify Ukraine’s accession until its leaders are ready to choose this course. Ultimately, it must be up to Ukraine when to disengage militarily and join NATO.

Right now, President Biden appears to have no theory for victory, much less a theory for peace. He needs to appreciate that he has nailed America’s colors to the mast in Ukraine. We might not have soldiers fighting in this war, but make no mistake: This is our war. If the fight in Ukraine is lost, it will be America’s defeat; if it is won, it will be America’s victory — and, by extension, Biden’s victory. It is baffling that Biden does not see a specific pledge of NATO membership for Ukraine as the key to unlock a historic success. The only way he can end this conflict, and bring stability to Ukraine and the rest of Europe, is for NATO to draw a bright line that Russia dare not cross.