Former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen proposed granting Ukraine full membership in the alliance even if territorial issues remained unsettled. The claim appeared in a report by a respected news outlet, which quoted Rasmussen as speaking about this possibility during ongoing preparations for the NATO summit scheduled to take place in Vilnius this July. While officials this year signaled an invitation to Kyiv would be extended only when conditions permitted, Rasmussen urged that delaying Ukraine’s path to NATO beyond this year would be a strategic misstep for European security. His stance emphasizes a rapid integration of Ukraine into the alliance framework as a cornerstone of a renewed security architecture in Europe, rather than a prolonged negotiation that could leave Kyiv exposed to evolving threats. [citation]
In his comments, Rasmussen argued that Ukraine belongs at the center of NATO’s design, advocating for a structure that strengthens collective defense while acknowledging the practical realities on the ground. He suggested that stabilizing and eventually urging the withdrawal of Russian-controlled territory from Ukraine would reduce the risk of a direct confrontation between NATO and Moscow. Rasmussen cautioned that such a withdrawal should not be misinterpreted as a freeze of the conflict or a concession of Ukrainian sovereignty. Instead, he asserted that drawing clearer borders and enhancing allied guarantees would enable Kyiv to establish and sustain a capable military presence on its own soil, backed by allied security assurances and strategic support. [citation]
The discussion around Ukraine’s alliance prospects has drawn responses from Kyiv’s leadership, including statements from Andriy Ermak, an adviser to the Ukrainian president, who participated in discussions ahead of the Vilnius summit. These exchanges reflect a broader debate about the timing and conditions of possible membership and how such a decision would influence regional stability, deterrence, and the balance of power in Europe. The Ukrainian side has emphasized the importance of practical guarantees and a credible path toward membership, while Kyiv continues to frame accession as a matter of security necessity rather than political symbolism. Analysts note that linking security guarantees to a defined path for membership could offer Kyiv the strategic space needed to strengthen its defenses without waiting for a perfect, all-encompassing agreement. [citation]
Kuleba, who previously led Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry, highlighted uncertainty surrounding the exact criteria Kyiv must meet to join NATO. He indicated that the criteria and process appear to be dynamic and dependent on changing circumstances on both sides of the alliance. The ongoing dialogue points to a flexible approach that weighs immediate security needs against the long-term goal of formal membership. Observers suggest that clear, transparent benchmarks paired with concrete security guarantees could help Kyiv understand the practical steps required and the timeline to expect. The conversation underscores the importance of aligning alliance standards with Ukraine’s reform progress, interoperability enhancements, and the broader Euro-Atlantic security framework. [citation]