Why can't Russia stop Ukraine from joining NATO by signing a treaty with a friendly NATO state?

Question

One of the core demands that Russia is making on Ukraine is that Ukraine enshrine neutrality, thereby permanently refraining from joining NATO. In other words, one of the reasons Russia went to war is to stop Ukraine from joining NATO.

Given that all member states in NATO must agree to a new state joining, why can't Russia prevent Ukraine from joining the alliance by getting Turkey or Hungary (or any other willing state that's already in NATO) to agree to veto any attempt by Ukraine to join the alliance? This sounds like a considerably simpler method to achieve the goal than going to war. I remember reading that Western leaders refuse to rule out admitting Ukraine in the future because they believe in Ukraine's right to self-determination, but this arrangement also sidesteps that objection, since Ukraine would still be free to apply, they just won't be able to join.

If this is possible: has it been suggested? If this is not possible (or not acceptable to Russia): why not?

Related: What, if any, reasons prevented Ukraine from joining NATO? which indicates that Hungary has already been blocking Ukraine from joining NATO, so if Hungary can be persuaded (or compelled via treaty) to keep blocking Ukraine from joining NATO, then there is no need for Russia to go to war.

Answer 1

From the linked question, Hungary had serious objections to Ukraine joining NATO already, and they took concrete steps like blocking talks etc.

Enshrining that in a treaty, e.g. between Hungary and Russia, would put the country doing this at an even more serious diplomatic standoff with the rest of NATO. To the point where they might be de-facto ejected. While NATO, unlike the EU, has no provision to suspend a country's membership, the treaty is also fairly flexible in what member countries must do.

According to some analysts, the real power of NATO is the integrated command and control and the presence of tripwire forces. The treaty is more like a paper appendage to these. There's nothing preventing the rest of the countries, sufficiently pissed off, from creating NATO 2.0, minus the country that has openly declared would sabotage the alliance in some fundamental way. Something like that more or less happened at the WTO, where the objecting country was the much more powerful US.

Answer 2

There is some disunity in the West, but also mutual dependence. Many of those who are wavering a bit regarding Russia (you mentioned Hungary) are also dependent on net transfers from the EU, and they were recently put on notice by the EU that there are values to respect. If they were to violate NATO unity openly, there would be consequences:

Article 8
Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty.

As Joe W mentioned in the comments, it would have to be a more informal promise. They got halfway to such a promise e.g. from Germany in the form of "not never, but not now, either." Chancellor Scholz offered before the war that Ukraine would not enter NATO during his tenure. For President Putin, that wasn't long enough.

But it would be a mistake to think that this is only about explicit NATO membership. The Russian leadership is afraid of Western-inspired color revolutions (they would say 'Western-organized' and not just 'Western-inspired') and a prosperous and democratic Ukraine is a mortal threat to the current Russian regime. Even if they don't sign up to NATO yet.

Answer 3

I believe Russia did try to conclude such agreements, and keeps trying as we speak. It's the time of presidential elections here in France, and some candidates like Roussel, Zemmour and Le Pen actually claim that if they are elected, France will vote against Ukraine joining NATO.

Taking into account that Le Pen's campaign of 2018 was financed by Russia, it is more than likely that such a position w.r.t. NATO expansion is part of the deal.

There might be yet another aspect in the conflict, namely, Putin's desire to punish Ukraine for dropping out of the Russia's sphere of influence. It could be a display of power for countries like Belarus or Kazakhstan, which is meant to show them what might happen to them if they ever decide to defy Russia.

Answer 4

Let's run with this. Orban, in Hungary, makes a deal, whether an actual treaty or gentleman's agreement to shoot down NATO membership.

Next election, Orban loses. What's keeping this type of deal from collapsing?

And keep in mind that, in practice, out of the 30 members of NATO at least one would have vetoed Ukrainian accession in the near future, deal or no deal.

Though, had it been a reliable way to avoid the war, formalizing non-accession should have probably been pursued. Trouble is what guarantees of Putin's good faith would have been acceptable? Even 3 weeks ago that looked questionable to take his word with regards to Ukraine.

Answer 5

NATO has been preaching since the 90's the mantra that "every country must be free to decide if they want to join NATO" as a convenient alibi to recall former soviet countries into the western (euphemism, the USA) sphere of influence. Putin is angry to see how NATO countries encircle its own, and has drawn a red line over Ukraine. If a NATO country signed a treaty like the one you propose it would be an open betrayal of the principles NATO has been promoting for the last 30 years.

The USA - let's not pretend that NATO has anything to do with all this situation - and Putin's Russia are playing a very dangerous game of "chicken game". The first one to blink was going to lose face and look like a coward chicken. Signing a treaty that makes Ukraine unable to join NATO would have been accepting Putin's conditions, so no NATO country could do that without losing face. Maybe a powerful country like Germany or France could have risked that, but the USA would have been really angry by the humiliation. Probably it would have ended with that country out of NATO, or maybe even a total collapse of the alliance. Just like Putin couldn't just retreat its troops in the border with Ukraine back to their winter's quarters without looking like if he had cowed against NATO's stance, NATO countries could not make any treaty which would be equivalent to surrender to Putin's red lines over Ukraine.