Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo stated upon arrival in Vilnius that Ukraine could become a NATO member if it satisfies all alliance criteria and secures unanimous consent from current member states. The report from TASS was cited as the source of this remark. De Croo emphasized that the path to membership hinges on meeting the alliance’s requirements and receiving a positive decision from every member country, underscoring the consensus nature of NATO invitations.
In Vilnius, De Croo articulated that Ukraine will, at some point, join the alliance. He remarked on ongoing discussions about the possibility and the potential for an invitation to Kyiv. The comments reflect a cautious but growing sense among many allies that Ukraine’s future membership would be tied to fulfilling the alliance’s standards and obtaining broad backing from its members.
Ahead of the alliance summit, the NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, held a press conference to signal a strong stance on Ukraine. Stoltenberg noted that member states should convey a clear message of support for Kyiv, reinforcing the sense that alliance unity is essential as the summit approached. The focus was on signaling to Ukraine that its security considerations are a matter of collective concern for the North Atlantic Council and its partners, while acknowledging the process and criteria that must be satisfied.
In parallel discussions in Vienna on July 11, Konstantin Gavrilov, who heads the Russian delegation, commented on the Ukraine-NATO Council’s first meeting during the summit. Gavrilov described the initial gathering as largely ceremonial for Kyiv, suggesting that the most Ukraine could anticipate from the event would be assurances of continued military assistance. This assessment reflects Moscow’s view that while diplomatic signals are forthcoming, concrete guarantees and deeper integration remain contingent on multiple strategic and political factors.
Former German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has also weighed in on the question of Ukraine’s NATO membership, offering analysis about why Kyiv may face significant obstacles. Scholz pointed to a range of considerations that could delay or complicate accession, including alliance consensus, implementation of reforms, and the broader security environment in Europe. The remarks frame membership as a complex process rather than a straightforward outcome, urging careful assessment of readiness and strategic alignment with NATO principles.
The broader context involves ongoing debates about security architecture, deterrence, and regional stability. Ukraine’s ambitions intersect with the alliance’s precautionary approach to enlargement and the need to balance rapid signaling with deliberative, consensus-based decisions. Several member states have repeatedly indicated that Ukraine’s path to membership would require sustained reform, transparent governance, and demonstrable interoperability with alliance standards. Others warn that rapid steps could provoke reactions from rival actors and complicate the already tense security landscape.
Analysts note that the upcoming summit is likely to feature intense discussion about the timing and conditions of possible future membership. They point to several informational cues that could shape the narrative going forward, including assessments of Ukraine’s defense capabilities, institutional reforms, and progress on long-standing integration benchmarks. The discussions also touch on the role of regional partners and the degree to which support for Kyiv translates into concrete hardware, training, and strategic commitments that align with NATO’s collective defense doctrine.
Overall, the public discourse surrounding Ukraine’s NATO aspirations emphasizes the core principle of alliance consensus. While leaders acknowledge that future membership remains within the realm of possibility, the practical path demands rigorous compliance with alliance criteria and a unified political will among all member states. In this environment, Kyiv’s prospects depend on sustained reform, durable security cooperation, and a clear, broadly supported strategic plan that aligns with NATO’s values and operational standards. At the same time, the international dialogue continues to weigh immediate security assurances against long-term integration, recognizing that the journey toward full membership is a carefully calibrated process that unfolds through multiple stages and persistent, coordinated effort.