Why a Labour government should make Ukraine’s NATO membership its central foreign policy objective

We are at war with Russia. Although this war may not be kinetic, it is still a war. One that is being fought with an array of tools at our disposal: military support for Ukraine, sanctions against Russia, counter-disinformation operations, espionage and counterespionage, an R&D race, diplomacy – bilateral and multilateral – and financial assistance to prevent states operating ‘in the middle’ from being drawn closer to Russia. 

Being at war is like being pregnant – you either are, or you are not. There is no halfway house. Unfortunately, the collective West has bizarrely viewed this war as a spectrum instead of a dichotomy. We have deliberated on the provision of Patriot missile systems and F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine – before eventually conceding. We have returned to the painful deliberation stage on the issue of Storm Shadow missiles being used on Russian territory. It is all too slow, too hesitant, too nervous. And Vladimir Putin is a man who does not hesitate to exploit our weaknesses.

When, in 2013, President Obama cited the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war as a red line and did not act upon it, Putin saw this as an opportunity to double down in Syria and much closer to home. In 2014, Russia invaded and occupied the Crimean Peninsula, which started the Russian war against Ukraine. In the summer of 2021, the US, the UK and other NATO allies completely withdrew troops from Afghanistan, leading to chaotic scenes in Kabul. Again, Putin smelled an opportunity, considering this yet another sign of the decline of the West, and launched the full-scale invasion of Ukraine just six months later in February 2022. In international relations, messages matter.

President Zelenskyy last week announced his five-point victory plan to the Ukrainian parliament - among those, the most crucial being Ukraine’s potential invitation to join NATO. 

The now-failed 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which traded security assurances in exchange for the removal of Soviet nuclear weapons from Ukrainian territory, is demonstrative that an end to this war cannot be resolved through a gentlemen’s agreement, where all the pressure is placed on Ukraine. 

Vladimir Putin will only be emboldened by such an agreement, which would provide him with an opportunity to re-arm, inevitably breach any accord and ultimately defeat Ukraine, before then looking towards the Baltics once other geopolitical opportunities arise – this time with Ukrainian soldiers from the east of Ukraine forcefully conscripted to the Russian armed forces. After all, Putin seeks to leave a legacy as the Russian leader who restored the empire and destroyed NATO.. 

These goals are easier to achieve than one might think. Russia does not need to completely take over Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania – it just needs to show that, if these countries are attacked, NATO allies will either do nothing or eventually give up. If Article V is rendered virtually irrelevant, there is a serious risk that we will be plunged back into the constant state of war in Europe that dominated our history before 1945. Putin’s Russia can no longer be afforded mercy. 

Nevertheless, we cannot expect Ukraine to fight forever either – not only against Russia but a de facto alliance that includes Iran, China and North Korea, who are supplying Russia with ammunition, drones and preventing the collapse of its economy following Western sanctions. 

The UK must lead a coalition of NATO allies, which must include the US and Germany, to ensure that Ukraine goes into any negotiation in as strong a position as possible. That should include allowing Ukraine to use Storm Shadow missiles in Russia’s territory. Fundamentally, however, it must include inviting Ukraine to join NATO as part of an accelerated process. 

This will require some creative thinking. After all, we should not expect that we would be able to apply Article V to occupied Ukrainian territories. But it absolutely should apply to territories under Ukraine’s control and in full – that includes ensuring they are covered by NATO’s nuclear umbrella, even if nuclear weapons are not held in Ukraine itself. Some have floated the West Germany model - this requires a unique solution.  Meanwhile, occupied Ukrainian territories should be treated in the same way as Crimea under international law.

Ultimately, only NATO membership can give Ukraine the security guarantees it needs. Only this can lead Russia and Putin to understand that such flagrant violations of international law will be punished and not appeased, and that, had Russia not acted in this way, Ukraine would never have joined NATO in the first place. But now it will, And if Russia extends its aggressive behaviour elsewhere, - for instance, in Moldova - the same will happen. This message must be delivered to Putin clearly and without ambiguity. That horrific actions have deeply serious consequences. He is a man who understands strength and only strength. 

The UK must, therefore, make Ukraine’s NATO membership its central foreign policy objective – this is fundamental to enforcing peace and security in Europe, which is in the British national interest.

Since Tony Blair set out a role for the UK as a transatlantic bridge, bonding the US and the EU together, the world has changed significantly. The UK is no longer a member of the EU, we no longer live in a unipolar world, and the US and EU seem to be growing further apart on a myriad of issues. 

The UK needs a new role in the world now that recognises this change. Instead of a bridge, the UK should seek to make itself a transatlantic Stretch Armstrong that is resilient enough to bring an increasingly divided West together, creating real added value to its own and the Alliance’s security. Ukraine’s NATO membership would serve as a litmus test here.

Practically speaking, the UK needs a strategic approach to deliver. 

This should include seeking not only to influence the approach of the US government through the usual channels but also restructuring and reinforcing the UK’s entire diplomatic network in the US by covering every inch of ground across Congress, governors and senior leaders in each of the fifty states, foreign and defence policy think tanks, media, unions and other influential political actors. The purpose of this would be to create a strong caucus of allies in support of Ukraine’s NATO membership, which can create domestic support in the US for this goal. 

A similar approach should be taken on the European continent, as well as in Brussels. Labour’s commitment to a security agreement with the EU is crucial here. Regularised access to Foreign Affairs Council meetings, a new UK-EU dialogue on defence and security, a defence industrial partnership partly based on the Horizon Europe model and potential re-entry to Common Security and Defence Policy missions, amongst other things, would provide the UK with more influence over EU foreign policy, ensuring that it remains aligned with NATO while providing Europeans with greater responsibility over its own region.

The Labour government recognises the threat Putin’s regime poses to all of Europe. It must now show effective leadership by making Ukraine’s NATO membership its key foreign policy deliverable - language to this effect in the new UK-Ukraine 100 years partnership agreement, which is currently being negotiated, would send a strong signal of intent.

Photo: Sergeant Paul Shaw LBIPP (Army) Credit: MoD/Crown via Flickr