Obstacles to postwar Ukrainian membership in NATO include logistical standardization, escalation risks with Russia, and high levels of corruption in Kyiv.

Ukraine’s ambassador to the United Kingdom—and also the former commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine—said this week that there was no likely path forward for his country joining the NATO military alliance.

Ambassador Valery Zaluzhny told a meeting of European ambassadors that the current stumbling block is that Ukraine would not meet the military standards needed to join NATO.

“I know NATO ⁠really well. For about 12 years, I personally worked on making sure we met NATO standards, and every year I heard fairy tales about how we would join NATO any day now. Unfortunately, we will never join it,” Zaluzhny said, according to a report from Evropeiska Pravda.

The ambassador also suggested that Ukraine, in fact, had greater strengths in some areas than NATO had, saying it was “impossible to join an organization that is guided by World War II doctrines in light of the current capabilities of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.”

Why Can’t Ukraine Join NATO?

Even if Zaluzhny’s comments are set aside, Ukraine will still face significant hurdles in its NATO ambitions once the war with Russia is finished.

First and foremost, every single current NATO member would need to agree to the expansion, including the United States. There is no guarantee that Washington would be on board with its integration. While President Joe Biden favored the move during his term, President Donald Trump has expressed skepticism, suggesting a willingness to keep Ukraine out of the alliance as part of a negotiated settlement with Russia. Other European NATO members have also cautioned that adding Ukraine to the alliance could provoke further Russian escalation.

Apart from the war, new NATO members must meet a series of high political and economic standards to be considered for membership, including democratic governance, military integration with NATO, and low levels of public corruption. The latter issue has been one that could remain a serious stumbling block for Ukraine, long regarded as one of the most corrupt countries in Europe. Indeed, even as Kyiv fights for its survival against Russia, senior Ukrainian officials have repeatedly come under investigation or resigned due to corruption allegations. This is likely to be a long-term problem for Ukraine’s bid for European integration, outlasting the war.

Moscow has previously made clear that it would oppose Ukrainian membership of NATO. Of course, Russia is not a member of NATO and has no authority over its decision-making, but the Kremlin may nevertheless have a say depending on how the war is eventually resolved.

Whether or Not It’s in NATO, Ukraine Will Depend on It

Despite the fact that Ukraine may not formally join the international military alliance any time soon, Kyiv may still require NATO technologies, and is likely to forge future deals for such hardware. 

Already, Ukraine is set to acquire the French-made Dassault Rafale omnirole jet fighter as well as the Swedish-made JAS 39 Gripen E. Those aircraft will help the former Soviet republic transition away from its Cold War-era platforms, notably the Soviet/Russian-made MiG-29 Fulcrum.

Zaluzhny also suggested that NATO would need to evolve, arguing that it was built to protect a world that is fundamentally changed, and not just politically. The ongoing conflict has been a testbed that highlights how military doctrine must be upgraded to match the lightning-fast technological developments on the battlefield.

“Scientific and technological progress has changed everything. By 2026, Ukraine has used virtually every type of weapon, except perhaps the Tomahawk missiles, nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers and F-35 fighter jets that are in NATO’s arsenal, and has applied the doctrines for their use. That resource has been exhausted. Russia has found ways to counter all of this,” the former commander-in-chief said in a separate interview.

Zaluzhny served as Ukraine’s top military official from 2021 to 2024, overseeing the initial response to the Russian invasion from February 2022 onward. He was dismissed as commander-in-chief in 2024 following disagreements with President Volodymyr Zelensky regarding the handling of the war, but was kept on as Ukraine’s ambassador to London.

Unlike some other officials—notably Andriy Yermak, a close Zelensky ally and former head of the Presidential Office of Ukraine who resigned in 2025 amid corruption charges—Zaluzhny has never been tainted in any personal scandals, and is widely seen as a likely candidate to replace Zelensky in future postwar presidential elections.

Ukraine Needs American Patriot Missiles—Unfortunately, So Does America

The war has also demonstrated the need for a greater emphasis on robust aerial defenses, and that current Western stockpiles may not be nearly deep enough. 

On Wednesday, Russia launched a devastating strike on Kyiv, and Ukrainian air defenses were mostly unable to counter it—failing to shoot down a single one of the 24 ballistic missiles fired by the Kremlin. At least 17 Ukrainians were killed, and dozens more injured.

Although Ukrainian air defenses did take out 98 of the 115 drones launched by Russia, it is clear that Ukraine’s response simply wasn’t good enough. Zelensky has called for NATO to provide additional air defenses to help protect his country.

“It is important to cut through all red tape and make the necessary political decisions. Literally every day, people’s lives here in Ukraine depend on the resolve of our partners in Europe and the United States,” Zelensky said following a meeting with NATO General Secretary Mark Rutte—warning that Moscow is ramping up its ballistic missile production for the coming winter with the obvious intent to target Ukraine’s energy sector.

The US likely can do little to help, and it is unclear if America’s allies will be able to help, at least when it comes to the MIM-104 Patriot interceptors that are capable of countering the Russian ballistic missiles. According to recent reports, the US military has expended roughly 50 to 65 percent of its global Patriot stockpiles during the war with Iran, leaving fewer than 1,000 missiles remaining. That has raised defense readiness concerns and prompted efforts to accelerate manufacturing.

As each Patriot interceptor is assembled almost entirely by hand in high-security defense manufacturing facilities rather than on fully automated mass-production lines, a single round can take more than two years to complete.

The interceptors have been the most effective weapon in Kyiv’s arsenal, and it remains the only platform that can counter the Russian Iskander-M, S-400, and Zircon (Tsirkon) missiles. The issue is further complicated by the fact that Russian tactics include mixing the high-value ballistic missiles with cruise missiles, drones, and decoys. Kyiv can only respond to so many threats, and has few batteries currently active.

One solution could be for Ukraine to manufacture its own air defenses.

At the NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey, in July, Trump had indicated he would be open to allowing Kyiv to produce the Patriot missiles under license, but no formal decision has been made. Even if such a plan is approved, it could take years for production to begin, and then even longer before any Ukrainian-made interceptors would be available.

For now, Ukraine must attempt to do its best to hold on. Even when the war is concluded, it will need to ensure it is as self-reliant as possible.

About the Author: Peter Suciu

Peter Suciu has contributed to dozens of newspapers, magazines and websites over a 30-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a contributing writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. He is based in Michigan. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

The post Will Ukraine Join NATO? Probably Not, Ambassador Says appeared first on The National Interest.