As Ukraine enters its 40th month of war against Russia, the country’s determination to join NATO has only grown stronger.
For President Volodymyr Zelensky, NATO membership is no longer just a foreign policy objective—it’s a matter of national survival.
Amid the destruction, the missiles, and the mounting death toll, Kyiv has anchored its hopes for peace and security to the promise of joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
Zelensky has repeatedly called NATO membership the “most effective guarantee” of peace. As recently as February 2025, he reaffirmed that it remains Ukraine’s central security goal.
In a symbolic gesture underscoring how deeply Kyiv is invested in this ambition, Zelensky even offered to step down from office if it would help Ukraine gain entry into the alliance.
But as Ukraine fights tooth and nail to get in, another country on a different continent is loudly pushing to get out.
Colombia Turns Its Back On NATO
Thousands of miles away from the trenches of Eastern Europe, Colombia—NATO’s only global partner in Latin America—is preparing to sever its ties with the alliance.
President Gustavo Petro’s fiery rhetoric at an emergency summit in Bogotá in mid-July made his intentions clear: Colombia, he said, must walk away from NATO and help build a new kind of military alliance—one rooted not in power projection, but in moral purpose.
“We must leave NATO. There is no other way,” Petro declared at the emergency conference on Gaza, held in Bogotá on July 15–16.
The event, organized under the Hague Group, brought together eight countries—Colombia, South Africa, Bolivia, Cuba, Honduras, Malaysia, Namibia, and Senegal—to coordinate legal and diplomatic action against Israel’s ongoing offensive in Gaza.
But Petro went further than simply criticizing NATO’s silence or perceived complicity. He proposed creating an entirely new military coalition, what he called an “army of light,” that would reject militarism rooted in Western interests.
“These are not armies of freedom,” Petro said. “They are armies of darkness. We must create an army of light with all nations willing to join.”
The NATO-Colombia Paradox
Colombia’s move is more than symbolic. Until recently, it was deeply enmeshed in NATO structures—though not a member, it enjoyed close cooperation.
In 2017, the country shocked many of its citizens by announcing it would become a NATO “global partner.” The agreement was formalized in Brussels the following year under President Juan Manuel Santos, who made it clear Colombia wouldn’t be joining NATO operations, but would benefit from military interoperability and training.
Then, in March 2022, the U.S. upgraded Colombia’s status by naming it a Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA)—a prestigious label granted to only a few of Washington’s closest partners, including Australia, Israel, and Japan.
The status granted Colombia greater access to U.S. military financing and technology, as well as participation in joint exercises such as the Large Scale Global Exercise (LSGE), led by the U.S. Department of Defense.
As recently as May 2025, Colombia’s Chief of Defence, Admiral Francisco Cubides, visited NATO headquarters and held high-level meetings with the alliance’s military leadership. It was business as usual—until it wasn’t.
Now, with Petro’s forceful denunciation of NATO and its Western backers, Colombia is on the verge of becoming the first MNNA to intentionally walk away from the benefits of alliance-based cooperation.
A Moral Rebellion Rooted In Gaza
Petro’s pivot is rooted in his government’s opposition to Israel’s war in Gaza, which began in response to Hamas-led attacks on October 7, 2023.
Since then, Israel has carried out a relentless offensive that has reportedly killed more than 58,000 people, according to figures from Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry.
At the Bogotá summit, the Hague Group announced three key actions: enforce International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant, ban arms exports to Israel, and prevent Israeli-linked military vessels from docking at member nations’ ports.
Petro, who severed diplomatic ties with Israel in May 2025—accusing its government of “genocide”—is one of the loudest voices in this new coalition.
In a column for The Guardian, Petro wrote, “Governments like mine have a duty to stand up to Israel.” He urged states to pursue legal, diplomatic, and economic measures to halt what he called the destruction of Gaza and uphold the principle that “no state is above the law.”
Petro also warned of complicity through economic ties. Colombia is one of the world’s top coal exporters, and some of that coal is reportedly used to power Israeli industries. “Colombian coal should not turn into bombs that kill children,” he said at the summit.
UN Voices Join The Chorus
The Bogotá summit drew international attention not just for Petro’s remarks, but also for the presence of key figures, including Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Albanese, known for her blunt assessments of Israel’s actions, accused the country of committing crimes against humanity, including genocide.
“Israel commits crimes like it breathes,” she said in an earlier interview with El País.
At the summit, her presence reinforced the legitimacy of the Hague Group’s legal push and added a layer of moral authority to its demands.
NATO On Trial, In Spirit If Not In Court
While the Hague Group doesn’t name NATO as a target, the undertone is impossible to miss. The group frames itself as a challenge not only to Israel but to the broader Western-led global order, one in which NATO remains a central pillar.
Petro’s speeches draw a sharp contrast between the West’s stated values and its actions. “If Europe wants to stand with Latin America and Africa,” he said, “they must stop aiding the Nazis”—a stark reference to his framing of Israeli policy in Gaza.
The implication is clear: NATO, by aligning itself with Israel and the United States, is seen by Petro’s Colombia as complicit in a global system that enables militarism and shields aggressors from accountability.
Ukraine’s Fight for Inclusion, Colombia’s Fight for Exit
The juxtaposition could not be starker. Ukraine, devastated by war and desperate for security guarantees, sees NATO as its only route to peace.
Meanwhile, Colombia, secure and far removed from conventional war, is preparing to walk away. Not because it feels betrayed militarily, but because it feels betrayed morally.
This divergence exposes a deeper tension within NATO itself: the growing divide between those who see the alliance as a guarantor of stability and those who see it as a vehicle for unaccountable power.
A Moment Of Reckoning
Petro’s challenge may not cause NATO’s walls to crack, but it does pose uncomfortable questions. Can the alliance remain globally relevant while ignoring voices from the Global South? Can it claim moral leadership when some of its closest partners reject that very claim?
Colombia’s rejection of NATO is not just about military exercises or policy disagreements. It’s about the soul of international cooperation in an age of moral fragmentation.
As Ukraine clings to NATO for its very survival, Colombia steps away in protest. Both moves reflect desperation—one for protection, the other for principle. And both are signs of a world order in flux.
- Shubhangi Palve is a defense and aerospace journalist. Before joining the EurAsian Times, she worked for ET Prime. She has over 15 years of extensive experience in the media industry, spanning print, electronic, and online domains.
- Contact the author at shubhapalve (at) gmail.com
