From Ankara to Kyiv: Why NATO Needs Ukraine More Than Turkey

 

Ukraine has done more to uphold NATO's founding principles in a single year than Turkey has managed in seven decades of membership. In plain English, Turkey courts Moscow with one hand while holding NATO’s shield with the other; Ukraine, meanwhile, fights Moscow tooth and nail, proving its worth daily. By keeping Ukraine out and tolerating Turkey’s antics, NATO risks becoming a toothless tiger that barks loudly but doesn’t bite.

If Turkey can wear the NATO badge while dancing on the geopolitical tightrope, why shouldn’t Ukraine be allowed to join the alliance? The argument for Ukraine’s NATO membership becomes even stronger when we juxtapose its unwavering commitment to Western ideals with Turkey’s history of contrarian behavior within the alliance.

Let’s examine the facts. Turkey became a NATO member in 1952 during the Cold War, largely for its strategic location as a bulwark against the Soviet Union. However, over the years, Ankara’s actions have often diverged from NATO’s principles. In recent years, Turkey’s purchase of the Russian-made S-400 missile defense system caused a significant rift within NATO. This move led to Turkey’s expulsion from the F-35 fighter jet program, a decision underscoring the incompatibility of Turkey’s actions with the alliance’s security goals.

Moreover, Turkey’s handling of human rights and democracy has been a sore point. Under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey has faced international criticism for its authoritarian turn. The crackdown on dissent, erosion of press freedom, and suppression of civil liberties within Turkey stand in stark contrast to NATO’s founding values of democracy and individual liberty. Yet, despite these glaring issues, Turkey remains firmly within NATO’s fold.

On the other hand, Ukraine’s candidacy for NATO membership is built on a foundation of commitment and sacrifice. Since 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea, Ukraine has been on the frontline of defending not just its sovereignty but also the broader ideals of democracy and freedom. The ongoing war with Russia has further cemented Ukraine’s position as a bulwark against Russian aggression. If NATO’s mission is to ensure collective defense and uphold democratic values, then Ukraine’s inclusion should be a foregone conclusion.

Ukraine’s contributions to exposing Russia’s military vulnerabilities cannot be overstated. The myth of Russia’s invincible military machine has been dismantled on the battlefields of Ukraine. The world has witnessed how Ukrainian forces, equipped with Western support but driven by their own resilience, have dealt devastating blows to Russia’s conventional military power. This revelation has strategic implications for NATO, as it highlights the diminishing threat posed by Russia in conventional terms and underscores Ukraine’s role as a valuable ally in curbing Moscow’s ambitions.

Furthermore, Ukraine has shown a steadfast commitment to aligning itself with Western institutions. It has undertaken significant reforms in governance, defense, and anti-corruption measures to meet the standards required for NATO membership. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has repeatedly emphasized Ukraine’s dedication to the principles that NATO upholds, making the case that Ukraine’s inclusion would strengthen the alliance both militarily and morally.

Contrast this with Turkey’s often ambiguous relationship with Russia. While Ukraine has been fighting Russian aggression, Turkey has maintained a complex and sometimes contradictory partnership with Moscow. From collaborating on energy projects to coordinating military operations in Syria, Turkey’s ties with Russia raise questions about its reliability as a NATO member. If NATO can tolerate such duplicity from Turkey, it begs the question: why is Ukraine being held to a higher standard?

The argument that Ukraine’s NATO membership could escalate tensions with Russia is often cited as a reason for caution. However, this reasoning overlooks the fact that NATO’s purpose is to deter aggression and defend its members. Failing to extend membership to Ukraine sends a message that NATO’s commitments are negotiable and that Russian aggression can dictate the alliance’s decisions. Such a precedent would undermine NATO’s credibility and embolden adversaries.

Historical context further strengthens Ukraine’s case. NATO was founded in 1949 as a collective defense alliance to counter Soviet expansionism. Today, Ukraine stands as the frontline state against the remnants of that expansionist ideology. By denying Ukraine membership, NATO risks betraying its own history and principles. The alliance’s hesitation appears inconsistent, especially when juxtaposed with its tolerance of Turkey’s actions, which often run counter to collective security.

Moreover, NATO membership for Ukraine would not only bolster European security but also reaffirm the alliance’s relevance in the 21st century. As the geopolitical landscape evolves, NATO must adapt by including countries like Ukraine, which have demonstrated their commitment to the alliance’s values and objectives. Ukraine’s inclusion would serve as a powerful symbol of NATO’s resolve to defend democracy against authoritarian aggression.

The proverb “actions speak louder than words” aptly applies to Ukraine’s case. While some NATO members hesitate and deliberate, Ukraine has been fighting, reforming, and proving its worth. The sacrifices made by the Ukrainian people in their fight against Russian aggression should not go unnoticed. If NATO truly values democracy, freedom, and collective security, it must extend its hand to Ukraine.

Critics might argue that Ukraine’s ongoing conflict with Russia complicates its membership prospects. Yet, this argument falls flat when considering NATO’s history. The alliance has previously admitted members facing significant challenges, recognizing the long-term strategic benefits over short-term risks. For example, Greece and Turkey joined NATO despite unresolved disputes, highlighting that complex geopolitical situations are not insurmountable barriers to membership.

The time has come for NATO to recognize the disparity in its treatment of Turkey and Ukraine. While Turkey continues to test the alliance’s patience with its unpredictable behavior, Ukraine has proven its loyalty and commitment. If NATO can accommodate a member that often acts against its collective interests, surely it can include a nation that embodies the very values the alliance was created to defend.

In the end, NATO must decide whether it wants to remain a club bound by outdated notions of geopolitical expediency or evolve into a truly values-driven alliance. The choice is clear: Ukraine deserves a seat at the table. After all, if a rogue actor like Turkey can be a member, then Ukraine—standing firm against tyranny and exposing the frailty of an overhyped adversary—has more than earned its place.

Perhaps NATO fears letting Ukraine in will expose how much dead weight it’s been carrying for years.