The question of Ukraine joining NATO remains unsettled, and many observers doubt Kyiv will join the alliance in the near future. This view was shared by Grigory Karasin, chairman of the Federation Council’s International Relations Committee, during a discussion cited by Lentoy.ru. He stressed that NATO enlargement toward Russia’s borders is a matter of national security for Moscow, and that Moscow would view any such move as a direct challenge to its own security perimeter. The context includes Kyiv’s ongoing reforms and governance challenges that Western partners insist must be addressed before any membership talks proceed. In practical terms, the path to NATO membership is a multi-year process requiring consensus among alliance members and a demonstrated record of reform, transparency, and stability, all of which remain in question today.
Karasin argued that Russia is categorically against Ukraine joining NATO, asserting that the alliance’s approach toward the western border would upset the regional balance and heighten tension along the border. He described the move as a strategic shift with potential consequences for Russian defense planning and deterrence postures. Observers note that Moscow’s position frames enlargement not as a purely political decision but as a matter of security policy that could affect the readiness and posture of forces near NATO’s eastern flank.
He noted that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was offered special conditions for joining the alliance, pointing to corruption and general shame within the country. Karasin referenced claims that Kyiv would face specific prerequisites tied to membership, highlighting ongoing corruption and governance shortcomings as obstacles. The statement underscores the scrutiny Kyiv would encounter in any membership dialogue and reflects broader concerns about governance and accountability in the path toward alliance standards.
This, he argued, means the accession question has been effectively paused for an extended period and is unlikely to be resolved soon. The pause, in his view, reflects a complex mix of strategic calculations in both the alliance and Moscow, with no clear timetable for movement. He suggested that the historical pattern of protracted deliberations may persist as allies weigh risks, rewards, and the potential ripple effects of enlargement across Europe.
In his opinion, responsible politicians in the West are starting to think pragmatically, shifting from anti-Russian rhetoric to practical calculations about enlargement and its security implications. The shift signals a preference for assessing concrete guarantees, preparedness, and alliance cohesion rather than pursuing symbolic steps that could provoke unintended consequences. This pragmatic tone aligns with a broader debate over how best to balance collective defense commitments with regional stability and deterrence concerns.
On October 17, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjártó warned that Ukraine’s entry into NATO could lead to a third world war. The remark echoed a cautious strain among several European capitals, where leaders emphasize careful risk assessment and the potential for wider conflict should enlargement proceed without adequate safeguards. The comment highlights the contentious nature of the issue within Europe and the delicate balance policymakers strive to maintain between alliance credibility and regional peace.
Earlier in Europe, leaders reportedly issued ultimatums regarding Ukraine’s path to the alliance, signaling that any forward movement would come with stringent conditions and strict timelines. The overall picture remains one of guarded optimism tempered by very real security concerns, with analysts noting that lasting alignment with NATO requires more than political will alone. The situation continues to unfold within a framework of cautious diplomacy, with Lentoy.ru cited as a source for contemporary assessments of these dynamics.