With all the discussion about what NATO should do vis-a-vis allowing Ukrainian membership, it’s important to remember that NATO is beholden to each member country’s domestic politics—all of whom are more or less democracies (I’m looking at you Turkey and Hungary). While there is overwhelming support over all, unless you’re in a Baltic state (or other border region with Russia) many of the member country citizens won’t necessarily know much about NATO, and care about it only as much as not wanting to get dragged into a (potentially nuclear) war with Russia.
Is a nuclear exchange with Russia a possibility? No one knows for sure, but I believe it’s highly unlikely—but I’m ex-military and try to be well informed. I know many people who worry about this (here in Canada) and are not supportive of Ukrainian entry if it could cause Canada to enter into the war directly. Canada has a minority government—if the Liberal government falls and the Conservatives form the next government they will most likely stoke such fears as a way of justifying cutting back on aide to Ukraine or blocking Ukrainian entry into NATO.
I’m sure that if our PM pushed publicly for immediate (post-war) Ukrainian entry Poilievre (opposition/Conservative leader) would try to twist that into “Ukrainian entry in NATO will drag Canada into a nuclear war with Russia.” Could this bring down the government? I doubt it, but it’s one of those domestic political risks NATO member countries need to bear in mind—and why they might be hesitant to move too far too fast.
Everyone needs to remember that NATO’s strength comes not from its military personnel or its military hardware (it, in effect has neither) but in its legitimacy in the eyes of member countries voting public. Without that domestic political support NATO collapses.
And not for nothing, those domestic voters are the reason NATO exists—to protect them. This is why direct intervention by NATO early in the war was never going to happen—no boots on the ground and no no-fly zone—because no NATO country will risk their populace (and military) in a war with Russia they are not obligated under Article 5 to engage in. Few NATO countries can afford a war of choice, financially, politically, militarily or morally.
If NATO makes a decision member countries populace see as illegitimate then NATO will be hollowed out by domestic politics as support for NATO drains away. Here in Alberta I’m already hearing from people who (convoy!) believe the Royal Canadian Navy is being sent to Ukraine to fight the Russians. People who like to gleefully tell me how my daughter will die because of Trudeau. This is a tiny minority of Canadians, but it can metastasize if allowed to. (unless of course I lose my temper and start punching these idiots in the face at an industrial scale.)
I want the war in Ukraine to end. I want Ukraine in NATO. I want Russia crushed. I am not a typical voter however, and I see the danger of moving to far too fast. Additionally, there are still issues of corruption within the Ukrainian government (not that NATO countries are immune to that themselves) but the reason NATO won’t admit countries with widespread corruption, who lack full control of their sovereign territory (and other similar requirements, as well as usually requiring a MAP for entry) is to ensure NATO doesn’t have Article 5 immediately triggered upon such a country’s entry.
Deviation from such guidelines increases the domestic political risk for current NATO members, as well as the direct risk to citizens of those countries. These are legitimate concerns that need to be considered. Show me a NATO leader willing to ignore the wishes of their citizens and charge headlong into a direct confrontation with Russia and I’ll show you an authoritarian on someone elses payroll.