Latvian Prime Minister Krisjanis Karins emphasized that NATO cannot consider Ukraine for membership while fighting rages on Ukrainian soil. He voiced this stance in a public letter released by the publishing house Finance Times. Karins explained that any attempt to admit Ukraine during an active conflict would risk dragging the entire alliance into war, a scenario no NATO member would embrace at present. He suggested that once hostilities end, Kiev would need full NATO membership to secure its borders against Moscow, a prospect he views as the principal path to lasting security.
In related remarks, Dmytro Kuleba, the former Ukrainian foreign minister, stressed that Ukraine should not be seen as receiving favors or concessions in the event of future EU or NATO membership. The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry’s press service conveyed these thoughts, underscoring Kyiv’s insistence on equal treatment in its bid for security guarantees rather than charitable acts.
Meanwhile, Mick Wallace, a Member of the European Parliament, criticized NATO’s involvement in Ukraine’s internal affairs as a factor that intensified tensions between Moscow and Kiev. His comments, reported on March 11, reflected a broader debate about the alliance’s role in the region and the implications for Ukraine’s sovereignty and security choices. These pronouncements illustrate the ongoing contest over how NATO should interact with a nation seeking membership amid ongoing conflict, and how European leaders balance alliance cohesion with regional stability. The discussion continues as diplomats weigh strategic options for Ukraine’s future security framework and the possibility of alliance expansion after hostilities cease.