Senators from both parties backed President Joe Biden over Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s disappointment with NATO's refusal to grant his country membership during the group’s annual summit in Vilnius, Lithuania.
Biden reaffirmed his opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine as long as it is in an active war with Russia. The president told reporters during a joint press conference with Finnish President Sauli Niinisto in Helsinki, one day after the NATO alliance wrapped up its summit, “No one can join NATO while a war is going on, where a NATO nation is being attacked because that guarantees that we’re in a war.”
BRAUN INTRODUCES BILL TO REVERSE 'HARMFUL' BIDEN MORTGAGE RULE
“We’re in a third world war,” he added. “So it's not about whether or not they should or shouldn't join. It's about when they can join, and they will join NATO."
Zelensky initially expressed displeasure Tuesday over NATO’s refusal to extend membership to Ukraine or outline clear guidelines on a path to membership, calling it “unprecedented and absurd when a time frame is set neither for the invitation nor for Ukraine’s membership.”
The Group of Seven issued a joint declaration of support on Wednesday that reasserted their “unwavering commitment to the strategic objective of a free, independent, democratic, and sovereign Ukraine,” mollifying Zelensky.
Senators across both parties defended NATO and Biden’s position that the Russia-Ukraine war must be resolved before Ukraine gains in comments to the Washington Examiner. Most noted NATO’s Article 5 provision, which states that an attack against any member of NATO is an attack against them all — and could possibly trigger a broader war with Russia.
Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK), who took part in a congressional delegation to the summit earlier this week, said on Wednesday that while Zelensky’s complaints were “understandable,” he believed “the focus of the summit was the right focus, which is: continued support for Ukraine, getting Sweden [NATO membership], getting the 2% requirements nailed down, and having a focus on the Asia Pacific.”
“The whole issue on Ukraine is premature on membership,” he added. “You’ve got to win. If you don’t win, the whole issue is moot.”
Sullivan has advocated getting the majority of current NATO members to begin paying their 2% defense budget sharing requirements. He argued those should be addressed before additional members are considered.
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT), who has been largely supportive of Ukraine’s efforts to combat the Russian invasion, argued that it would be “imprudent of us to specify a time frame” on membership.
“While there's conflict going on and Ukraine is under brutal attack, it would be imprudent of us to specify a time frame for Ukraine to be admitted to NATO,” the Utah senator said. “And keeping that as an ambitious goal is appropriate. But I think at this stage, we do not want to be signing up for a conflict with Russia.”
Sullivan and Romney, who both serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, were hardly alone in their views. Members across the ideological spectrum agreed that the Eastern European country was simply not ready for NATO membership.
Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Mark Kelly (D-AZ) all told the Washington Examiner this week that they did not support Ukraine’s admission into the alliance while still engaged in the war.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a defense hawk and staunch Ukraine ally, predicted that the alliance would eventually offer them membership, though not in the near future.
“I think they're going to get into NATO,” he said. “The war has to be over. I understand that. But I think I've never been more confident that Ukraine will be in NATO.”
“You don't want to give a veto to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin forever,” he added. “But yeah, I think the idea of the conflict being resolved makes sense.”
Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), a close Biden ally who sits in the president’s former Senate seat, pointed to Ukraine’s work to make political changes and defense upgrades in order to join the European Union. Coons, who also serves on the Foreign Relations Committee, argued that the EU membership confirmation process appeared to be helping Ukraine in terms of improving its overall ability to be seriously considered by NATO.
He noted how EU membership includes fewer defense requirements than NATO, which is widely regarded as the world’s premier military alliance.
“Full NATO membership requires both political changes and military upgrades in terms of equipment, training, doctrine. Ukraine is on the path to full EU membership,” Coons said. “The steps that they need to take — and they are taking — that will allow them to be admitted to the EU are also helpful on the path towards full NATO membership.”
The Delaware senator also said that on his recent trip to Europe, where he met with EU and NATO leaders, “it became clear to me that the path to EU membership is sooner, clearer, but requires reforms. And the subsequent path to NATO membership is something that will require investment in training, weapons systems, and support. But that is something that I am working to try and make sure we're able to deliver.”
Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY), Josh Hawley (R-MO), and J.D. Vance (R-OH) have all been vocal critics of the significant U.S. investment in the conflict and oppose NATO expansion. They splintered, however, on what NATO’s role in supporting Ukraine should be.
“I think it'd be a bad idea. And it's one of the few things I agree with President Biden on,” Paul said. “It would be basically voting to be involved in a war with Russia because it would sort of guarantee an immediate, more direct involvement with the war.”
Hawley said that his NATO expansion opposition had to do with his commitment to the alliance and echoed Sullivan’s desire to address the burden sharing issue. In addition to the financials that Sullivan focused on, though, Hawley also thinks European members of NATO should carry the majority of the burden in terms of handling Ukraine.
The U.S. would then take on the task of combating China in order to support NATO’s overall peace efforts, he explained, citing a number of European members expressing disinterest in the China-Taiwan conflict.
Recognizing that this won’t realistically happen exactly as he’d like, he still noted that, “I think NATO is important. NATO was formed, of course, principally to count on the Soviet Union. We need our NATO allies to do more than ever before with regard to Russia and security on the continent.” He then urged Biden to “be forthright with our NATO allies and say we need to spend more on your own defense. We need you to take the lead in Europe. Our burden sharing arrangement will be: we will provide the nuclear deterrent. We'll do more in Asia, and we will split the burden that way.”
Vance, on the other hand, said he believes the alliance should reassess its unwavering commitment to Ukraine given that the conflict has “no obvious strategic exit.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
“I was actually happy to see that NATO is pumping the brakes a little bit on letting Ukraine in, at least in the short term,” Vance said. “I think it'd be an especially huge mistake in the middle of the war.”
“The leaders of NATO finally convinced themselves that they have to see this thing through even though it's causing a lot of death and carnage and there's no obvious strategic exit,” he continued. “So I think we need some cooler heads to prevail. We need NATO to wake up.”