At a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in Berlin on Monday, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz expressed his opposition to Ukraine's accession to NATO. However, his opposition represents more than a simple policy mistake. It is a historic failure of courage and vision.
Scholz's position not only undermines the security and sovereignty of Ukraine but also threatens the stability of Europe at a time when the unity of the continent is of crucial importance. Granting Ukraine membership of NATO is not a risk for Europe; it is necessary - and in the process, Germany should be the leader, not the antagonist.
JOIN US ON TELEGRAM
Follow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official.
Scholz, along with some other “cautious” European leaders, bases his argument on the notion that Ukraine's NATO membership could potentially "escalate tensions" with Russia. However, this argument is based on outdated diplomatic views that fail to acknowledge the new reality on Europe's eastern borders.
Since Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine, it has become painfully clear that giving in to Moscow does not lead to peace; it only encourages Russian aggression. Scholz's attitude, therefore, will only further embolden Russia, sending a signal that NATO will not react at the same time as European democracy is fighting for its survival.
The idea that admitting Ukraine to NATO would provoke Russia defies historical precedent and logic. It is crucial to remember that NATO has a rich tradition of accepting nations under Moscow's threat.
Christmas in the Forests With Those Who Fought Hitler and Stalin
The history of Germany itself perfectly illustrates what should be the way ahead
In 1955, West Germany became a member of NATO at a time when the eastern half of the country was under Soviet occupation. It was an insignificant decision. It symbolized NATO's commitment to defend Germany against Soviet power, even as East Germans suffered under Soviet communist rule. West Germany's NATO membership was an unequivocal promise that European sovereignty had value and that countries fighting for freedom would find allies in the organization.
The German chancellor ignores his own hypocritical position. In the 1950s, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and other allies did not hesitate to protect Germany, even though this placed NATO in direct confrontation with Soviet interests in Eastern Europe.
Despite the very real threat of Soviet retaliation, the security of West Germany was considered crucial to the stability of Western Europe. Germany did not stand alone then; NATO was a shield that protected Germany from the Soviet threat.
Today, however, Scholz would deny Ukraine that same solidarity. Is Ukraine less deserving of security? Does it not deserve the same level of support, despite standing on the front lines of defending European values?
Scholz's refusal to support Ukraine's NATO membership effectively vetoes Ukraine's security, a risky move Moscow perceives as a distinct weakness. Russian President Vladimir Putin makes no secret of his desire to expand his influence over former Soviet territories, with Ukraine as his main target.
Ukraine will only strengthen NATO not dilute it
The sovereignty and survival of Ukraine hang in the balance, and the only defense mechanism strong enough to stop further Russian expansion is NATO. Scholz's position, based on an outdated diplomatic vision of relations with Russia, only weakens the alliance and strengthens the aggressors. Putin will only feel encouraged when he sees European leaders hesitating. He sees indecision as a weakness and an opportunity for himself.
In addition, Scholz ignores the reality on the ground. Since 2014, and especially since the 2022 invasion, Ukraine has shown remarkable resilience, capability, and determination. Its armed forces have sharpened their skills and demonstrated their capacity to protect their nation. They do not ask for charity; they seek a partnership with NATO that would allow them to become an even stronger barrier against Russian aggression.
This is not the Ukraine of 2014; it is a nation that has been defending itself against the relentless onslaught of a nuclear power for more than a decade. If NATO's purpose is to protect European security, how can it turn its back on the country that now bears the brunt of resisting Europe's biggest security threat?
Support to Ukraine will not cause escalation
Those who argue that Ukraine's membership could lead NATO into direct conflict with Russia need to acknowledge the reality. Russia has already shown that it is ready to cross international borders and use military force against a sovereign nation.
Russia's ambitions do not end with Ukraine. Georgia, Moldova, the Baltic countries, and others are also on Putin's list. NATO's hesitation today will only pave the way for tomorrow's crisis. The alliance must realize that the best way to prevent further Russian aggression is to stand firm now, not to cave in to Moscow's demands. NATO's strength lies in its unity and commitment to collective defense; the message to potential aggressors must be unequivocal.
Scholz's attitude is not only dangerous for Ukraine but also for Germany and the entire European continent. Germany owes its security and prosperity to NATO. During the Cold War, NATO's resolve protected Germany from Soviet pressure. Today's German economy, its democratic institutions, and the freedoms enjoyed by its citizens are possible because the allies were prepared to stand up for its defense.
Now is the time for Germany to repay the debt it owes to NATO and Ukraine
Scholz and all of Germany must now recognize that it is their turn to show the same determination. Ukrainians are fighting and dying to preserve their sovereignty and, more broadly, the security of Europe. They are, in a sense, leading the German struggle. It is now upon Germany to return the favor by fully supporting Ukraine's bid for NATO membership, rather than hiding behind inaccurate rhetoric about "de-escalation."
If Germany refuses to act, then it is up to other NATO leaders, especially the United States, France, and Great Britain, to take a stand and convince Scholz that Ukraine's NATO membership is not only in Ukraine's interest - it is for the benefit of NATO as a whole.
Every argument Scholz makes against Ukraine's membership is equally applicable to any NATO member that borders Russia. NATO's security guarantees for other member states come into question if it does not support Ukraine.
Scholz's position risks sending the message that NATO protection is conditional, weak, and subject to negotiation. It is not only an existential threat to Ukraine but also to NATO as an organization. By supporting Ukraine's membership, NATO strengthens its own credibility, ensuring that its security commitments remain undisputed.
It is also important to view this issue in the context of NATO's long-term strategy and Europe's security architecture. The alliance cannot afford to always react backwards; always one step behind Russian moves. NATO must be proactive, which means taking bold steps to show unity against Russian aggression.
Ukraine's integration into NATO would be a strong deterrent signal that NATO will not tolerate further violations of European sovereignty. Scholz's claim that NATO should hold back in order to avoid a Russian reaction is to ignore the lessons of history. The best way to prevent Russian aggression is to show strength, unity, and clarity of goals.
Scholz should recall the courage shown by German leaders of the past, who did not back down from the responsibilities and risks of joining NATO, even when Soviet troops occupied the eastern half of the country. West Germany's NATO membership was not without its dangers, but the alliance accepted Germany as a clear statement of collective security.
Today, Berlin faces a similar choice. Will they show courage and lead Europe, or will they retreat into the shadows, leaving other NATO members to bear the burden of defending European democracy?
It is absolutely necessary for Germany to abandon its hypocrisy and double standards. Scholz's indecision offends Ukrainians who are sacrificing everything for the values that NATO represents. It also represents a betrayal of the post-war promise that every European democracy deserves a chance of peace and security.
If Germany enjoyed NATO protection when it was vulnerable, now is the time for Berlin to extend that protection to Ukraine. Anything less than that not only betrays Germany's moral obligation but also reflects a lack of vision, poses a risk to Europe's future, and sends a signal to Russia that Europe is susceptible to division.
And to repeat, Ukraine’s place is in NATO, not only for its own security but also for the stability and security of the entire alliance and its members. Hypocrisy and cowardice have no place there.
The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.
You can also highlight the text and press Ctrl + Enter
