
Why Isn't Ukraine in NATO?
Ukraine has made membership in NATO a key strategic aim, based on the idea that the alliance's blanket of protection would guard against future Russian aggression.
But even before this week's events, membership in NATO was a distant dream for Ukraine. NATO countries have supported Ukraine with military aid, but have shown little appetite for taking on a new member that could potentially draw them into a direct war with Russia.
In his second term, Mr. Trump — who has questioned NATO's relevance and even threatened to withdraw from the alliance — now appears to be moving even further from the idea that Ukraine could join the group in the future.
What is NATO?
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, known as NATO, is a mutual-defense alliance that was established after World War II, in 1949, by the United States, Canada and 10 European countries. It is also known by its French acronym, OTAN.
The treaty for which the alliance is named has 14 articles that all NATO members must follow. Perhaps the most significant is Article 5, which declares that an attack against one member state is an attack against all.
That article placed Western Europe under U.S. protection against the Soviet Union, which during the Cold War was cementing its domination over Central and Eastern Europe and appeared to be only growing in power and ambition.
After the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991, the alliance took on a wider role. NATO forces — made up of troops volunteered by member states — operated as peacekeepers in Bosnia in the 1990s and bombed Serbia in 1999 to protect Kosovo, where the alliance still has troops.
Which countries are members?
In addition to the United States and Canada, the countries that became part of NATO in 1949 were Belgium, Britain, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Portugal.
Since then, 20 more European states have joined: Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland, Turkey, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.
Finland became a member in 2023 and Sweden joined in 2024, abandoning their military nonalignment in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Finland shares an 830-mile border with Russia.
Membership in NATO has long offered protection under the American nuclear umbrella and the principle of collective defense. But the alliance also has extensive requirements — not just spending goals for the military, but specific demands for capabilities, armaments, troop strengths and infrastructure.
How does Trump feel about NATO?
The United States has historically dominated the alliance both politically and military, but Mr. Trump has questioned NATO's relevance as well as his country's financial contribution to its efforts. Mr. Trump has railed against allies for not meeting the NATO spending goal of 2 percent of their economic output, and even threatened to withdraw from the alliance.
His warm relationship with Mr. Putin has also rattled NATO members, who have sought to isolate the Kremlin.
Mr. Trump's return to the White House has refocused NATO members' efforts to shore up financial and military cooperation amid fears of wavering support from the United States. Since Mr. Trump's first term, European Union nations have increased military outlays. They spent an estimated $340 billion on defense in 2024, a 30 percent increase compared with 2021. At least 23 of NATO's 32 members now spend 2 percent or more of their gross domestic product on defense, in line with the alliance's goals.
In Brussels this week, Mr. Hegseth offered NATO members reassurance of America's continued role in mutual defense, even as he repeated calls for its countries to increase their military spending beyond 2 percent of gross domestic product and aim for 5 percent.
The other NATO defense ministers, meeting in Brussels, insisted that negotiations cannot go ahead without Ukraine's involvement.
How has the war in Ukraine changed NATO?
Russia's invasion of Ukraine has forced NATO to revisit is initial security strategy of deterrence to one that is increasingly ready for war.
NATO members have sent billions of dollars in equipment and arms to the Ukrainian military. Britain and France, for instance, have sent air-launched cruise missiles and last year. The Biden administration agreed to send Army Tactical Missile or ATACMS (pronounced 'attack 'ems'), American-made long range missiles. The alliance has also helped coordinate Ukraine's requests for humanitarian aid.
The war has raised new fears of Russian aggression among countries along NATO's eastern border, particularly the Baltic States and Poland, which has gained significant clout within the alliance. Poland's president, Andrzej Duda, was among the first foreign leaders to visit Kyiv after start of the invasion and has been one of its most hawkish backers.
With Mr. Trump in office, the alliance has explored how to become more self-sufficient, while also trying to balance relations with the United States. NATO's secretary general, Mark Rutte, has emphasized that when it comes to defense, the continent cannot realistically go it alone without the United States.
What's the status of Ukraine's membership application?
The hope of joining NATO is a central part of Ukraine's plan to secure its future within the European Union. NATO has promised eventual membership to Ukraine — without giving a timeline — since at least 2008. Kyiv officially applied to join NATO in 2022, after Russia's invasion.
NATO has also drawn up a list of overhauls Ukraine must embrace before it can become a member.
It was always unlikely that Ukraine would join the alliance while the war is ongoing, because it would put NATO's members in direct conflict with Russia. And with Mr. Hegseth's comments this week, the prospects of Ukraine's membership in NATO appears to be more remote than ever.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Boston Globe
6 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Under pressure, House Republicans consider vote on Epstein files
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Yet the House resolution was the latest demonstration of how practically no one is moving on from Attorney General Pam Bondi's promises to publicly release documents related to Epstein. Since he was found dead in his New York jail cell in August 2019 following his arrest on sex trafficking charges, the well-connected financier has loomed large among conservatives and conspiracy theorists who have now lashed out at Trump and Bondi for declining to release more files in the case. Advertisement 'The House Republicans are for transparency, and they're looking for a way to say that they agree with the White House. We agree with the president. Everything he said about that, all the credible evidence should come out,' House Speaker Mike Johnson said Thursday afternoon. Advertisement Democrats vehemently decried the resolution's lack of force. They have advanced their own legislation, with support from nine Republicans, that would require the Justice Department to release more information on the case. Rep. Jim McGovern, who led the Democrats' debate against the Republican resolution Thursday night, called it a 'glorified press release' and 'a fig leaf so they can move on from this issue.' Under pressure from his own GOP members, Johnson had to demonstrate action on the Epstein files or risk having Republicans support the Democratic measures that would force the release of nearly all documents. 'The American people simply need to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,' House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said at a news conference. 'Democrats didn't put this into the public domain. The conspiracy theory provocateur-in-chief Donald Trump is the one, along with his extreme MAGA Republican associates, who put this whole thing into the public domain for years. And now they are reaping what they have sown.' Still, Democrats, who hold minorities in both chambers, have relished the opportunity to make Republicans repeatedly block their attempts to force the Justice Department to release the documents. Trump in recent years has suggested he would release more information about the investigation into Epstein, especially amid speculation over a supposed list of Epstein's clients. In February, the Justice Department released some government documents regarding the case, but there were no new revelations. After a months-long review of additional evidence, the department earlier this month released a video meant to prove that Epstein killed himself, but said no other files related to the case would be made public. Advertisement A White House spokeswoman said Thursday that Trump would not recommend a special counsel in the case. But later Thursday, the president said he had asked Bondi to seek the release of testimony from grand jury proceedings in the case. Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, said that process would likely only produce limited information, but added that it showed that 'the president is hearing the American people.'


Axios
6 minutes ago
- Axios
Sanders, Warren accuse CBS of canceling Colbert's show in appeal to Trump
Top lawmakers were quick to rally around Stephen Colbert following the cancellation of "The Late Show." Why it matters: Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) accused CBS of placating President Trump as its parent company Paramount is closing in on a merger deal. Driving the news: CBS on Thursday said it was canceling "The Late Show With Stephen Colbert" after the next season in May 2026. CBS said in a statement the decision came "against a challenging backdrop in late night" and it's "not related in any way to the show's performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount." What they're saying: Sanders and Warren suggested that Colbert's recent criticism of Paramount's settlement with Trump motivated its cancellation of "The Late Show." "CBS canceled Colbert's show just THREE DAYS after Colbert called out CBS parent company Paramount for its $16M settlement with Trump – a deal that looks like bribery," Warren asserted on X Thursday night, repeating Colbert's accusation. "Stephen Colbert, an extraordinary talent and the most popular late night host, slams the deal," Sanders said on X Friday morning. "Days later, he's fired. Do I think this is a coincidence? NO." "If Paramount and CBS ended the Late Show for political reasons, the public deserves to know. And deserves better," Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) also wrote on X Thursday. State of play: Trump has in taken aim at late-night comedians in the past, and celebrated the show's cancellation on his Truth Social platform on Friday. "I absolutely love that Colbert got fired," Trump wrote. "His talent was even less than his ratings. I hear Jimmy Kimmel is next," he said, with Kimmel being another vocal critic of his. In response to an Axios request for comment, the White House referred to Trump's Truth Social post. Flashback: CBS parent company Paramount Global said earlier this month that it would pay $16 million to settle a voter interference lawsuit filed by Trump last October, even as press freedom advocates warned the company was buckling to political pressure. The settlement likely clears the way for Paramount Global to merge with Skydance Media. The move was widely criticized by free speech advocates, with The Freedom for the Press Foundation filing a shareholder information demand. Catch up quick: Colbert previously slammed his parent company in a segment following the settlement.


Axios
6 minutes ago
- Axios
Embattled MAGA rallies behind Trump after leak of alleged Epstein letter
The MAGA movement finally began to unite on the issue of Jeffrey Epstein Friday, rallying around President Trump — and against "the fake news media" — after the release of a blockbuster Wall Street Journal investigation. Why it matters: A pair of explosive developments gave MAGA influencers the cover they needed to suspend nearly two weeks of unprecedented infighting over the Trump administration's handling of the Epstein files. First, the Journal's report that Trump sent Epstein a lewd and bizarre birthday card in 2003 drew threats of a lawsuit from the president and a furious defense from his supporters. Second, Trump directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek the release of all relevant grand jury testimony in the Epstein prosecution — the first substantive gesture toward transparency after shutting down the case entirely. Reality check: The temporary kumbaya likely won't erase the movement's deeper suspicions. It's unclear whether a judge will even authorize the release of the sensitive grand jury material — or whether those documents will reveal anything new. MAGA still wants comprehensive receipts about Epstein's powerful clients, the scope of his sex trafficking operation and the nature of his death in prison in 2019. Driving the news: You could almost hear MAGA's sigh of relief Friday, after weeks of being torn between the movement's long-held theories about Epstein and Trump's apparent disinterest in addressing them. The shocking details of the alleged letter reported by the Journal — a vulgar doodle, a mysterious type-written note and no hard evidence of its authenticity — gave MAGA influencers reason enough to dismiss it as fake. Trump's personal outrage and directive to Bondi satiated some MAGA calls for transparency while offering the movement a common enemy: the mainstream media. "We're seeing a unifying moment. The band is back together," MAGA podcaster Jack Posobiec told Axios. "He gets attacked just relentlessly by the Wall Street Journal in such an uncalled for way, and we have his back 100% against this smearing and this slandering," Charlie Kirk added on his show. "Nothing unites MAGA quite like fake news." Yes, but: What comes next is uncertain. Another episode in the vein of Bondi's previous blunders — including the distribution of "Epstein Files" binders that contained little new information — could be deeply damaging. "The disclosure they're offering should have been done months ago. I'm not really sure this fixes anything, just shows that they had the info the whole time and didn't prioritize its release," one MAGAworld operative told Axios. The bottom line: The MAGA civil war over Epstein is on pause. Given the movement's extraordinary penchant for deference toward Trump, it might stay that way. But this is also a base that values receipts and doesn't take kindly to being gaslit. A lack of disclosures could reignite the fighting. "This is what MAGA has been waiting for — Trump against the system," Steve Bannon texted Axios, namechecking Journal and its owner, Rupert Murdoch.