Link to article: https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-pushes-for-nato-membership-but-its-complicated/a-70951477
With the looming threat of Trump’s presidency potentially resulting in significantly lessened aid sent to Ukraine, the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, has signaled that allowing the uncaptured territory of Ukraine to join NATO may be the only way to secure a ceasefire with Russia. This partial membership in NATO, however, would require the agreement of every member country in NATO in order to be ratified. No consensus has been reached within NATO, however, with many members expressing concerns that allowing Ukraine to join NATO will only drag more states into the war and provoke Russia, worsening the conflict.
At the center of this increased pressure for Ukraine to secure a means of defending against Russia is the election of Donald Trump. Trump has made several claims in regard to Ukraine and NATO — promising to end the Russia-Ukraine war before he even enters office (causing many to fear his resolution will be unfavorable to Ukraine and concede too much to Russia) and reportedly considering pulling out of NATO if the US is not treated “fairly.” If the US, one of the founding members of NATO, leaves the alliance, many other states may follow suit — after all, the organization was created to protect against the Soviet Union, which no longer exists. And even as NATO currently exists, not all the members are interested in taking a larger role in the Russia-Ukraine war, at the risk of their own interests. If this doesn’t change, Ukraine is left with only one option: rely on the aid of its local, European powers, who are more directly affected by the threat of Russia. But does this, then, put Europe at risk of erupting into a large-scale conflict that involves the whole continent — whether other countries send their own troops to defend Ukraine or Russia captures all of Ukraine and continues to attack other countries?
Zelensky, by this point, has already begun to consider conceding the captured territory to Russia in order to obtain a ceasefire — an option that may be the most realistic, favorable option for everyone involved. There is a sort of ideological incentive to not let Russia win in any respect — a sort of fear that if you give Russia an inch, they’ll take a mile — but crippling Russia entirely will undoubtedly have rippling consequences. Not to mention that Putin has no incentive to stop until he secures some sort of win that will legitimize his authoritarian rule. The best outcome for Europe is to concede territory to Russia, secure a ceasefire, and make Ukraine a NATO member to protect against further conflict.
This conflict could be analyzed to support the constructivist perspective of international relations. Rather than arguing from a realist perspective, that this conflict was caused by Russia’s need to protect itself by expanding its power/defensive capabilities, or a hyper-liberal perspective, that this conflict could have been avoided had Russia been democratic, you could say that this conflict was informed by the dissonance between Russia’s identity and the identity of the rest of Europe. Because of Russia’s history as an aggressor, separate from the interests of Europe, they have an inherently oppositional relationship with the rest of the continent. If Europe could find a sense of shared identity with Russia, less conflict would result.