NATO No More

While critics decry Trump’s reluctance to extend NATO’s protective umbrella over Ukraine, his approach may ultimately yield a more sustainable solution.

U.S. President Donald Trump has categorically ruled out offering U.S. security guarantees or NATO membership for Ukraine, instead emphasizing that European allies should bear primary responsibility for Kyiv’s defence. His remarks come as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky prepares to visit Washington to finalize a deal involving the transfer of rare earth minerals, which are critical resources for U.S. technology and aerospace industries.

Trump’s stance, no surprise to any keen watcher by now, marks a departure from decades of U.S. policy, which saw NATO’s expansion steadily push eastward despite assurances given to Russia in the 1990s that the alliance would not move “one inch” beyond Germany’s borders.

Significantly, Trump alluded to that very promise when he said that the dangling of the NATO carrot before Ukraine had resulted in the current situation to begin with.

The roots of today’s crisis can be traced back to the immediate aftermath of the Cold War. As Germany reunified in 1990, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker assured Gorbachev that NATO would expand “not one inch eastward” beyond its existing borders. The understanding was that in exchange for allowing German reunification under NATO membership, the alliance would refrain from absorbing former Warsaw Pact states or Soviet republics. That promise, made to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev during negotiations over German reunification, was quietly discarded. Over the years, successive American administrations welcomed former Warsaw Pact countries and even ex-Soviet republics into NATO, steadily eroding Moscow’s strategic buffer.

While Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is rightly condemned, it is undeniable that NATO’s enlargement has played a role in escalating tensions. The inclusion of countries like Poland, the Baltic states, and most recently Finland, touted as a move for stability, was perceived in Moscow as a direct security threat. Ukraine’s pursuit of NATO membership, strongly encouraged by the West, became the final red line for Vladimir Putin, providing the pretext for military action.

Now, instead of reflexively expanding U.S. security commitments, Trump is pressing European powers to take responsibility for regional stability, making clear that NATO’s European members should shoulder the burden of defending Ukraine.

His reluctance to commit the U.S. to formal security guarantees stands in contrast to the stance of his predecessor, Joe Biden, who supported Ukraine’s eventual NATO membership but without offering a clear timeline. This vague assurance arguably prolonged the conflict by giving Kyiv false hope while simultaneously aggravating Russia.

Crucially, Trump also appears to be making headway in diplomatic efforts with Moscow. He suggested that Russian President Vladimir Putin is now more open to compromise, having initially aimed to subjugate the entire country.

This war is more than a simple Russia-Ukraine conflict; it is the result of a geopolitical struggle rooted in the disintegration of the Soviet Union. As political scientist Paul D’Anieri argues in Ukraine and Russia: From Civilized Divorce to Uncivil War, Ukraine has been at the heart of Russia’s efforts to maintain influence over the post-Soviet space. Without Ukraine, Moscow’s ambitions to rebuild a sphere of influence crumble, making Kyiv’s westward drift an existential challenge for the Kremlin.

Compounding this is the issue of nuclear disarmament. As Yuriy Kostenko details in Ukraine’s Nuclear Disarmament, the 1994 Budapest Memorandum saw Ukraine surrender the third-largest nuclear arsenal in exchange for vague “assurances” of sovereignty. That agreement, brokered by the U.S., U.K. and Russia, offered no binding guarantees, leaving Ukraine vulnerable to Russian aggression decades later. The war has since reinforced scepticism about denuclearization, sending a clear message to countries like Iran and North Korea that giving up nuclear weapons without ironclad security guarantees is a strategic mistake.

By resisting the impulse to expand U.S. military commitments and prioritizing diplomacy, economic agreements and burden-sharing among European allies, Trump may be charting a course toward de-escalation. In doing so, he is challenging an entrenched U.S. foreign policy consensus that has too often ignored the long-term consequences of NATO expansion.