Despite international pressure and Trump’s call for negotiations to seek a political solution to end the Russia-Ukraine crisis, NATO’s involvement is prolonging the war and complicating negotiations. Eastern European geography has been always full of geopolitics challenges, especially after the Soviet era collapse. Since 1949 the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has grown and increased influence and has changed the security architecture of Europe and beyond.

NATO’s military aid to Ukraine prolongs the conflict, raising questions about its commitment to peace or broader geopolitical motives.

NATO is accused of being an active participant in the crisis and of extending the conflict. Critics argue that Constantly NATO has increased its supply of military aid to Ukraine, disregarding Putin’s concerns about security, which has contributed to the escalation of the conflict. The intensified involvement of NATO has become a contentious issue, particularly following statements from NATO officials, including Chief Jens Stoltenberg, and leaders from European countries, who have continued to support and supply military aid to Ukraine.

During a recent meeting, Stoltenberg and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine highlighted NATO’s commitment to supporting Ukraine. However, this support, while appearing to stand with the victim nation, has only enabled the offensive state to continue the war instead of ending it. Critics argue that NATO’s actions reflect an escalation pattern, indicating that the war will not end soon.

The NATO alliance reflects two perspectives on the situation regarding Ukraine. Donald Trump’s return to the White House could put at risk U.S. support for Ukraine, given his recent favorable remarks about Vladimir Putin and his promise to quickly end the war nearly three years after the invasion. Conversely, Trump and his supporters argue that allowing Ukraine to join NATO will definitely provoke an aggressive response from Moscow, potentially drawing the alliance into a direct conflict.

For many years, even before Putin took power, Russia has maintained a clear stance they have consistently asserted that NATO should never expand to include Ukraine. This stance has been firmly rooted as a non-negotiable principle but at some point, during his administration, President Biden was responsible who countering this belief, insisting that Ukraine should be permitted to pursue NATO membership. Trump sympathizes with Russian concerns as these moves would place NATO right at Russia’s doorstep, and they might perceive that as a threat.

Moreover, the alliance’s decision to enhance arms deliveries to Ukraine, establish more military bases in Eastern Europe, and conduct ongoing military exercises near Russian borders has created the impression in Russia that NATO poses a direct threat. NATO’s expansion towards Russia’s borders and the organization’s growing activity in Eastern Europe a significant factor contributing to the situation in Ukraine. NATO’s focus on strengthening Ukraine’s military rather than insisting on an immediate ceasefire or negotiations fuels suspicions that NATO is solely interested in undermining Russia.

Trump’s potential return could reshape NATO’s Ukraine strategy, favoring diplomacy over military escalation.

Some critics have suggested that Western support for Ukraine represents a proxy war, where NATO allows Ukraine to fight Russia while disregarding the cost to human lives and regional stability. This perspective is not unfounded, as NATO has primarily insisted on military assistance without making significant efforts toward peace negotiations. The ongoing supply of advanced weapons, including reconnaissance and attack UAVs, SCUD reconnaissance vehicles, air defense systems, and artillery, seems to set the stage for further escalation rather than a peaceful resolution.

This prolongation of the conflict raises questions about NATO’s motive whether it seeks peace or has a geographical strategy in mind. NATO’s leadership, particularly Stoltenberg, often emphasizes that the alliance’s main task is to protect the sovereignty of states and uphold the Ukrainian people’s right to self-determination. However, this rhetoric fails to address the ground reality, where a political settlement could effectively end the ongoing loss of lives.

United States now decide not to maintain this format any longer, then we will have to make our own decisions, said Pistorius at the Ukraine Defense Contact Group. Ahead of Donald Trump’s inauguration as U.S. president, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said on an allies’ group aimed at speeding arms to Ukraine was best kept under U.S. leadership but would adapt if Washington changes its involvement. If the United States now decides not to maintain this format any longer, then we will have to make our own decisions, said Pistorius at the Ukraine Defense Contact Group.

NATO has mechanisms to ensure continuity even if a member, including the United States, is less engaged recently NATO General Secretary stated at the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, that if the United States now decides not to maintain this format any longer, then we have to make our own decisions.

Nevertheless, NATO’s approach to Ukraine in the context of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict has raised essential questions, concerning the alliance’s goals, the strategy of deterrence, and the geopolitics of the growing contradictions of recent years. This leads to another important question despite NATO’s consistent support for Ukraine through arms supplies, intelligence sharing, and military training, why NATO has refrained from granting Ukraine membership and practicing Article 5 to provoke Russian aggression lawfully?

NATO’s reluctance to negotiate realistic terms with Russia fuels tensions, undermining prospects for a lasting resolution in Ukraine.

Trump’s criticism of NATO member’s contribution to their defense spending should be more than double as they are living in dangerous territory. Trump’s remarks about NATO’s role, U.S. commitment to the alliance, and defense spending have raised concerns among member states, fearing a shift toward a more isolationist U.S. foreign policy.  Straining relations developed between President Trump and NATO, particularly regarding his positions on key geopolitical issues.

Trump’s return to the White House would Spark speculation about a potential push to end Moscow’s invasion, but there is also fear for Kyiv that a quick peace could come at a high price for Ukraine. Trump supports Russia’s position on Ukraine and criticizes member countries for failing to meet defense spending targets. This is perceived as a more transactional approach focused on burden-sharing, undermining the 75-year-old European alliance.

Trump’s policy of seeking peace a more balanced approach has not been embraced by NATO’s current leadership. His stance reflects a broader discontent with NATO’s activities, as some view the alliance’s actions as not only reactions to Russian aggression but also as part of an information warfare campaign in Eastern Europe. NATO’s decision to remain firm and continue endorsing military support for Ukraine reinforces Putin’s narrative that the alliance is an aggressor in the conflict. If NATO leadership continues down this path, it will only escalate tensions in Eastern Europe and create an unpredictable situation that could last for decades.

Critics argue that NATO’s actions reflect an escalation pattern, making peace in Eastern Europe increasingly elusive.

Thus, NATO’s operations in Ukraine may make the alliance a precursor to escalating conflicts rather than a guarantor of peace. The alliance’s reluctance to negotiate realistic negotiations with Russia and its reliance on military solutions rather than diplomatic ones reduces the likelihood of finding a compromise. Donald Trump sought to minimize NATO’s involvement in the region and advocate for diplomacy, urging that sanctions should lead Russia and Ukraine to negotiate.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.