NATO members are weighing how to shape the alliance’s approach to Ukraine, including the possibility of security guarantees or deeper military support beyond what some might compare to the Israeli model. This framing comes as discussions circulate among allied capitals and through diplomatic channels cited by the Financial Times, which spoke with officials inside the alliance about the options and their implications.
A key aide to the reporting noted that adopting the Israeli-style security guarantees would demand substantial resources and commitments. The same source emphasized that backing Ukraine more robustly would carry a significant liability for NATO and its members, potentially affecting broader strategic calculations, budgets, and political economies across the alliance.
Ahead of the Vilnius summit, scheduled for mid-July, a NATO representative described the more extensive cooperation with Kyiv on security guarantees as something that clearly carries high costs. The official said that the closer the alliance binds itself to Ukraine on security issues, the more obvious the calculated risks and financial exposures become for Western partners supporting Kyiv’s defense and political process.
In the midst of these discussions, former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen raised a provocative idea: Ukraine might join the alliance in stages, reminiscent of how West Germany joined after a period of integration and transformation. The notion of a phased accession has been floated as a way to manage both the political sensitivities and the practical hurdles involved in bringing a large, frontline state into the collective defense framework.
Meanwhile, the military situation in Ukraine remains active, as Russian forces carry out a sustained operation. President Vladimir Putin publicly framed the action as a mission to demilitarize Ukraine and to prune its leadership posture, a narrative that has framed Western responses and diplomatic messaging since the initial invasion was announced on February 24, 2022. The stated objectives have shaped NATO’s long-term planning, deterrence postures, and talks about alliance adaptation in the face of evolving security threats.
From another angle, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has publicly addressed the question of Ukraine’s path to NATO membership, suggesting that geopolitical and security considerations may complicate or delay Kyiv’s prospects for joining. His assessment reflects ongoing debates within Europe about how best to reconcile Ukraine’s aspirations with the alliance’s broader strategic framework and the risks perceived by some member states regarding enlargement and collective defense commitments.