Membership

 Ukraine; on what grounds did President Zelinsky feel he could legitimately ask for Ukraine to join NATO: his own election? Was there a referendum?

Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s push for Ukraine to join NATO is rooted in several key factors, none of which involved a formal referendum—at least not yet. Here's a breakdown of the grounds on which he has pursued NATO membership:

🗳️ Electoral Mandate and Public Sentiment

Election Platform: Zelenskyy was elected in 2019 with a strong pro-Western stance. His campaign emphasized anti-corruption, reform, and closer ties with Europe and NATO.

Public Opinion Shift: Support for NATO membership among Ukrainians surged after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine. Before 2014, support was low; afterward, polls showed a majority in favor of joining NATO.

📜 Constitutional Commitment

In February 2019, just before Zelenskyy’s election, Ukraine amended its constitution to enshrine the goal of joining NATO and the EU. This made NATO integration an official state policy, which Zelenskyy continued to uphold.

🗣️ Zelenskyy's Statements and Promises

Zelenskyy has publicly stated that Ukraine, as a sovereign nation, has the right to choose its alliances. He emphasized that NATO is not something to fear and promised to hold a referendum on NATO membership when Ukrainians are ready.

He made these remarks during his first foreign trip as president to Brussels, where he met with EU and NATO officials.

🌍 Geopolitical Context

The Russian invasion and occupation of Ukrainian territory have made NATO membership a strategic priority for Ukraine. Zelenskyy has argued that NATO offers security guarantees that are essential for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

So while there hasn’t yet been a referendum, Zelenskyy’s legitimacy to pursue NATO membership stems from:

His electoral victory on a pro-Western platform

Constitutional backing

Strong public support post-2014

His own commitment to democratic processes, including the promise of a future referendum

Would you like to explore how NATO has responded to Ukraine’s aspirations or what hurdles remain for membership?

Who amended the constitution on this matter. Was this legitimate?

Great question, Louise. The constitutional amendment that committed Ukraine to pursuing NATO and EU membership was passed in February 2019, under President Petro Poroshenko, not Zelenskyy. Here's how it unfolded and the legitimacy behind it:

🏛️ Who Amended the Constitution?

The Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine’s parliament, passed the amendment in a third and final reading.

334 lawmakers voted in favor, with only 35 against. Since constitutional amendments require at least 300 votes, this met the legal threshold.

President Poroshenko initiated the amendment and signed it into law shortly after the vote.

✅ Was It Legitimate?

Procedurally, yes: The amendment followed Ukraine’s constitutional process, including review by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, which ruled the changes were in line with constitutional norms.

Politically, it was debated: Some critics argued the timing—just before the 2019 presidential election—was politically motivated to boost Poroshenko’s reelection chances.

Judicial dissent: While the Constitutional Court approved the amendment, six judges issued separate opinions raising concerns about its long-term implications and potential legal ambiguities.

📜 What Did the Amendment Say?

It added language to the Preamble and other articles of the Constitution, committing Ukraine to pursue full membership in the European Union and NATO.

It also obligated the president, government, and parliament to uphold this strategic direction.

So while the amendment was legally valid and passed with a strong majority, its political context and some judicial reservations have left room for debate. Would you like to explore how this amendment affects Ukraine’s actual chances of joining NATO—or how Zelenskyy has built on it since taking office?

Ukraine; are Poroshenko and Zelensky from the same political formation; what is the relationship?

Poroshenko and Zelensky are not from the same political formation, and their relationship has been marked by rivalry and deep distrust.

🧭 Political Backgrounds

Leader Political Party Orientation

Petro Poroshenko European Solidarity Pro-European, center-right

Volodymyr Zelenskyy Servant of the People Centrist/populist, reformist

Poroshenko was elected in 2014 after the Euromaidan revolution. His party, European Solidarity, is strongly pro-EU and NATO, with a traditional political structure.

Zelenskyy, a former comedian and media figure, founded Servant of the People in 2018, named after his satirical TV show. His party ran on anti-corruption, transparency, and reform, appealing to voters disillusioned with the political elite—including Poroshenko.

⚔️ Relationship and Rivalry

Their rivalry began in 2014, when Poroshenko reportedly invited Zelenskyy to join his political team. Zelenskyy declined, preferring to build his own influence first.

The tension escalated during the 2019 presidential campaign, which was bitter and personal. Zelenskyy defeated Poroshenko in a landslide.

In 2025, Zelenskyy imposed sanctions on Poroshenko, accusing him of undermining national security and benefiting financially from corrupt dealings. Poroshenko called the move politically motivated and unconstitutional.

🧠 Ideological Differences

While both are pro-European, their approaches differ:

Poroshenko emphasizes traditional diplomacy, military strength, and elite alliances.

Zelenskyy focuses on grassroots reform, media-savvy messaging, and anti-corruption.

Their rivalry reflects deeper tensions in Ukraine’s political identity—between old-guard elites and reformist populism. Would you like to explore how this rivalry affects Ukraine’s NATO ambitions or domestic stability?

But Zelensky has carried the torch of NATO membership. Was that ever part of his party platform?

Yes, NATO membership was part of Zelenskyy's broader political vision, though it wasn't the centerpiece of his party platform when he first ran for president in 2019.

🟢 Initial Platform: Reform First, NATO Later

Zelenskyy's Servant of the People party focused primarily on anti-corruption, judicial reform, and economic modernization.

While pro-European in orientation, the platform was deliberately vague on NATO. Zelenskyy emphasized that Ukraine's foreign policy should reflect the will of the people, and he promised a referendum on NATO membership when the time was right.

🔥 Shift After Russian Escalation

After Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, Zelenskyy’s stance hardened. In September 2022, he formally applied for accelerated NATO membership, framing it as essential for Ukraine’s survival and sovereignty.

By the 2023 NATO summit in Vilnius, Zelenskyy was openly demanding full membership, appearing before crowds with banners reading “#UkraineNATO33” to symbolize Ukraine as the alliance’s 33rd member.

🧭 Strategic Realignment

Zelenskyy’s push for NATO became more than symbolic. NATO responded by:

Removing the Membership Action Plan requirement for Ukraine.

Creating a NATO–Ukraine Council to deepen political coordination.

So while NATO wasn’t a central plank of Zelenskyy’s original campaign, it became a defining issue of his presidency—driven by war, public support, and the strategic need for security guarantees. Would you like to explore how NATO members have responded to Ukraine’s bid or what obstacles still remain?

Making pursuing NATO membership an element of the Constitution seems quite unusual to me. Logically, putting the cart before the horse.

You're absolutely right to find it unusual, Louise. Enshrining NATO membership in a nation's constitution is not common practice, and in Ukraine’s case, it was a bold—and arguably risky—move. Here's why it might feel like putting the cart before the horse:

🧩 Why It’s Unusual

Most countries join NATO first, then adjust their laws and policies to align with alliance standards.

Ukraine reversed that logic: it committed constitutionally to joining NATO before receiving any formal invitation or guarantee of membership.

This creates a binding legal obligation for future governments to pursue NATO, even if geopolitical realities shift.

🧠 Strategic Logic Behind It

The amendment was passed in 2019, shortly after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and amid ongoing conflict in Donbas.

It was meant to:

Signal resolve to Western allies.

Deter Russian influence by locking in a Western trajectory.

Prevent backsliding by future leaders who might favor neutrality or rapprochement with Moscow.

⚠️ Risks and Criticisms

Critics argue it limits diplomatic flexibility, especially in peace negotiations.

As seen in the latest developments, Russia continues to demand Ukraine abandon its NATO ambitions as a condition for peace—making the constitutional commitment a major sticking point.

So yes, it’s a high-stakes gamble: Ukraine locked in a strategic goal that remains politically and militarily elusive. Would you like to explore how other countries have handled NATO aspirations or what alternatives Ukraine might have had?