Zelenskyy to Yle: NATO membership would bring Russia more security than Ukraine remaining outside it

NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is a political and military alliance of countries in Europe and North America. Its members consult on security and coordinate defence planning. Membership gives a country a formal place inside that shared security system. It can also improve military cooperation, readiness, and planning.

The alliance’s central idea is collective defence. Under Article 5, an armed attack on one member is treated as an attack on all. Each ally decides what assistance it considers necessary. That assistance may include military force, but the commitment does not prescribe one identical response.

For Ukraine, membership would therefore change the security calculation around the country. An attacker would face the possibility of confronting the wider alliance, not Ukraine alone. Zelenskyi called NATO membership the clearest of three security models Ukraine is considering. The article also reports his view that membership could make Ukraine a more stable and predictable neighbour for Russia.

Zelenskyi presented NATO membership as the clearest of three security models Ukraine is still examining. He argued that Ukraine would be as valuable to NATO as NATO is to Ukraine. In this view, membership would give Ukraine a stronger and clearer security framework than uncertain promises.

His most surprising claim concerned Russia. In response to Yle, he said Russians also need Ukraine to join NATO. He argued that membership would bring Russia more security than Ukraine remaining outside the alliance. He did not explain the argument in greater detail during the press conference.

The article interprets his remark as a possible signal about predictability. A Ukraine inside NATO could be a more stable and predictable neighbour for Russia than Ukraine in its current position. The statement remains Zelenskyi’s political argument, while Ukraine continues considering all three models and seeks strong guarantees from the United States.

NATO has 32 member countries as of 2026. The alliance links countries across Europe and North America through political consultation and military cooperation. Its size matters because a potential aggressor must assess the combined capabilities, resources, and political weight of all members rather than facing one country in isolation.

The key mechanism is Article 5, NATO’s collective-defence commitment. If one member suffers an armed attack, the allies regard it as an attack against the entire alliance. Each member then takes the action it considers necessary. That can include military assistance, but Article 5 does not automatically require every ally to use armed force in exactly the same way.

For Ukraine, joining would place its security inside this framework. The article identifies membership as the clearest model among three options Ukraine is considering. NATO membership would not remove every danger, but it would make any attack on Ukraine a crisis involving the alliance’s collective commitment.

If Ukraine became a NATO member, an armed attack against it would fall under the alliance’s collective-defence framework. The issue would no longer concern Ukraine alone. Other members would treat the attack as an attack on the alliance and decide what assistance they considered necessary.

That mechanism could change an aggressor’s calculation. Before attacking, Russia or another potential attacker would have to consider the likelihood of facing support from 31 other allies, including their political and military capabilities. The commitment is powerful partly because it creates uncertainty and risk for any attacker. It does not, however, prescribe one automatic military response from every member.

The article presents NATO membership as Ukraine’s clearest security model, while Zelenskyi says Ukraine is still examining three options. Membership could therefore strengthen deterrence and reduce the perceived opportunity for attacks. It would also make Ukraine’s security directly connected to decisions taken collectively by NATO members.

Zelenskyi said Ukraine joining NATO could benefit Russia as well as Ukraine. He argued that Russians would gain more security from Ukraine being inside NATO than from Ukraine remaining outside it. The article suggests that this view rests on greater stability and predictability.

A NATO member operates within a defined alliance structure. Its security relationships, defence planning, and response expectations are clearer than those of a country whose future alignment is disputed. That clarity can reduce uncertainty about how the country might respond during a crisis. It can also make the consequences of attacking it easier to understand.

The article does not report Zelenskyi giving further details. It says his comment can be interpreted as a hint that NATO membership would make Ukraine a more stable and predictable neighbour for Russia. His claim is therefore part of the current political argument over Ukraine’s future security guarantees, while Ukraine continues examining three models.

In 1994, Ukraine concluded the Budapest Memorandum. The article says that the United States and Russia, among others, guaranteed Ukraine’s sovereignty in return for Ukraine abandoning nuclear weapons. These were security assurances connected to Ukraine’s decision to give up that arsenal.

Zelenskyi contrasted the memorandum with the guarantees now being discussed. He called the Budapest agreement vague, while saying new guarantees would be written in detail. He also said the proposed guarantees would require approval by the United States Congress. That approval, in his view, would give the commitments a stronger and clearer foundation.

The contrast matters because Ukraine is seeking dependable protection while the United States’ approach has cooled as President Donald Trump has moved closer to Russia. Zelenskyi said Ukraine can trust the United States because the new guarantees would be specific. The article presents this as his position, not as a settled outcome of negotiations.

Military alliances deter aggression by changing the expected cost of an attack. Without an alliance, an aggressor may calculate that the target can be isolated. With an alliance, the target’s partners may provide political, economic, or military support. The possibility of a wider conflict can discourage an attack before it begins.

NATO’s central mechanism is collective defence. Article 5 says an armed attack on one member is treated as an attack on all. Each ally decides what action it considers necessary. The promise therefore reassures members that they will not face a crisis entirely alone, while warning potential enemies that aggression could bring a broader response.

This affects both sides’ security calculations. Allies may feel safer because their commitments are shared, and they can plan around common expectations. Potential enemies must consider the alliance’s combined strength and political resolve. For Ukraine, Zelenskyi presents NATO membership as the clearest model among three options, while arguing it could also create a more predictable relationship with Russia.