The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine assures that the Vilnius NATO summit should determine the comprehensive prospects for Ukraine's accession because "Kyiv needs the Alliance, and the Alliance needs Kyiv."

In a long article for Foreign Affairs, Dmytro Kuleba notes that Finland's accession to NATO was a "shift in the tectonic plates of European security", and this shift will not be completed until Ukraine joins the Alliance.

He underlines that with Russia's full-scale attack on Ukraine, Putin began to destroy the security order in Europe, which was formed after the Second World War, so the stakes are extremely high not only for Ukraine. The outcome of the war depends on peace and stability in Europe in the future.

"Doing so requires accepting the inevitable: that Ukraine will become a NATO member, and sooner rather than later. It is time for the alliance to stop making excuses and start the process that leads to Ukraine’s eventual accession, showing Putin that he has already failed and forcing him to temper his ambitions," argues the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Kuleba notes that Ukraine, defending itself, has already proven that it is more than ready for membership and will be a valuable ally.

He called on the members of the Alliance to move away from the uncertainty regarding the accession of Ukraine. "We need a clear written statement from the allies laying out a path to accession," Kuleba notes.

In his opinion, precisely the lack of certainty after the Bucharest summit in 2008 became "Putin's best ally."

He rejected the most common argument that admitting Ukraine to NATO "would provoke Russia."

Kuleba mentiones that at the time when Russia occupied Crimea and started hybrid aggression in Donbas, Ukraine was a non-aligned state. Similarly, when Putin launched a full-scale invasion, NATO did not yet give Ukraine any realistic prospects for accession. Finally, he cites as an example the entry into the Alliance of Finland – Russia's reaction to the extension of the border with NATO by 1,300 km was only to downplay the importance of its entry in general.

Also, he noted, the arguments that there is no unequivocal support for accession in Ukrainian society, or that it varies greatly by region, have lost their relevance.

Kuleba also reminded that society in NATO member countries – from 65% to 80% of respondents, depending on the country – perceive Russia's attack on Ukraine as an attack on Europe in general.

"Both the leaders of most NATO countries and the public in these countries perceive Ukraine as an integral part of the Western security architecture. It is time to act in accordance with these beliefs," he noted.

According to him, the argument about the lack of unity in the Alliance regarding the acceptance of Ukraine is also insignificant. As an example, he cites the EU's decision on candidate status for Ukraine, which at the beginning of the journey also seemed unlikely.

"Russian aggression against Ukraine has reinvigorated the alliance and given it a new raison d’être. Finland joined after resolving its differences with NATO countries. Sweden will follow suit, and Ukraine can, too. It’s just a matter of political will. If we focus on division, we will be divided. But if we look for practical solutions, NATO will be stronger and more unified. It’s time to drop this excuse and finally accept that there is no alternative to admitting Ukraine if NATO’s goal is to ensure the security of the Euro-Atlantic community," he pointed out.

Kuleba noted that he does not at all question the current support for Ukraine, but he has concerns about what NATO's longer-term strategy for Ukraine is and whether it will once again be overly cautious.

He also emphasized that Ukraine should be considered not only as someone who "is a problem", but also as an advantage for NATO itself: Ukraine is currently protecting NATO's eastern flank and is gaining valuable experience that may be of interest to European armies that have not yet had practical experience of such a large-scale war.

"At the alliance’s upcoming summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, NATO members should send a written signal to Russia that the game is over: Ukraine is part of the West, it is on NATO’s doorstep, and it will soon walk through the door. To avoid any misunderstandings, we in Ukraine are not talking about immediate membership at the Vilnius summit but about NATO allies taking a historic step toward admitting the country," Kuleba convinces.

In his opinion, there is no longer any need for the Membership Action Plan for Ukraine – since Finland and Sweden have set a precedent that, if the criteria are met, you can join without this stage, and Ukraine more than meets the criteria for joining.

Kuleba calls on NATO to make a political decision that will either determine the timetable for Ukraine's accession directly at the summit in Vilnius, or oblige it to be presented by the end of 2023.

"Accession will be a process, and achieving the ultimate goal of Ukrainian membership in the alliance will depend on the security situation, but this process needs to start without delay.It would be reasonable for NATO members to decide what kinds of security guarantees they wish to offer Ukraine right now, pending the accession, and which of these guarantees will continue to apply after Ukraine becomes a NATO ally (in addition to those enshrined in the NATO treaty). If NATO fails to act at the Vilnius summit, however, it will continue to carry the shame of Bucharest. It's time to act... Ukraine needs NATO, and NATO needs Ukraine," he emphasised.

Previously, Poland, Czechia and Slovakia advocated security guarantees for Ukraine even before NATO membership (Ukr).