The United States and NATO should:
- Leave all options on the table to counter Russian military aggression in Ukraine
- Reject Russian demands to limit NATO’s actions in member states
- Retain the option of admitting Ukraine to NATO in the future
- Support Ukraine’s efforts to repel Russia’s invasion and deny Russia a credible claim of victory
- Strengthen NATO’s defenses against future Russian aggression
These positions reflect a broader view that credible deterrence and alliance reliability are essential to preventing territorial aggression and maintaining global stability.
If you have already made up your mind, then scroll to the bottom of the page and take the poll to let us know how you feel. If you need to hear more, please read the background section below.
Curious how your views compare? Early input has a meaningful impact—vote below (scroll down) to see the current results.
Your input helps us refine these policy positions.
Background
During the second half of the 20th Century, the world was relatively free of significant territorial aggression, with the notable exception of the Korean War and Iraq’s seizure of Kuwait (1990). The 21st Century has seen a fairly abrupt end to this pattern including Russia’s seizure of the South Ossetia and Abkhazia regions of Georgia (2008), Russia’s annexing the Crimean region of Ukraine (2014), and Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine (2022).
We believe that this era of relatively limited territorial aggression, in the second half of the 20th Century, was largely the result of the United States maintaining a global military advantage and signaling a willingness to use it.
The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1990 may have been encouraged by a U.S. diplomat inadvertently signaling to Saddam Hussein that the United States would not oppose the invasion. A similarly weak response from the U.S. and NATO to Russia’s preparations for the invasion of the Crimean region may have played a role there. The West should make clear that further Russian aggression against Ukraine will not be tolerated and that all options remain under consideration. The U.S. and NATO should refuse to consider Russian proposals to prohibit NATO from stationing troops or weapons systems in the former Soviet states that are now part of NATO. The U.S. and NATO should also reject Russian demands to permanently exclude Ukraine from NATO membership. Russia’s repeated use of military force to seize and annex territory, in violation of post-World War II norms and its own prior commitments, makes it a rogue state. Appeasement will only encourage further Russian aggression.
The Russian demand to limit NATO’s expansion into Ukraine is particularly difficult to justify. In 1994, Ukraine agreed to relinquish the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union under the Budapest Memorandum. In return, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom pledged to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Because these were assurances rather than enforceable defense guarantees, they proved insufficient to deter Russian aggression, as demonstrated by Russia’s seizure of Crimea in 2014 and its full-scale invasion in 2022. This experience underscores the limits of non-binding security commitments and strengthens the case for more credible deterrence arrangements.
If Russia has any hope of slowing NATO’s expansion, a non-negotiable quid pro quo for any such agreement should be for Russia to withdraw from all of Ukraine, including the Crimea and Donbas regions, compensate Ukraine for the devastation Russia’s invasion has caused, and withdraw from the South Ossetia and Abkhazia regions of Georgia. Otherwise, the case for NATO expansion to prevent further Russian military aggression is compelling.
We believe that Russia, under Putin, will never agree to these conditions and that America and NATO’s only path for the short term is to strengthen Ukraine’s efforts to repel Russia and strengthen NATO’s defenses in general.
Sustained support for Ukraine and a clear commitment to deterrence represent a relatively low-cost investment in avoiding larger and more costly conflicts in the future.
Go to the Table of Contents or to the next Foreign Policy Position
Ready to weigh in? At this stage, each vote has a meaningful impact—see the current results after voting.
Your input helps us refine these policy positions.