By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Zelensky proposed a path to ending the war in Ukraine: bringing unoccupied Ukrainian territory under NATO’s protection. This would allow for subsequent diplomatic negotiations to reclaim occupied lands. However, Zelensky emphasized that NATO membership must encompass all of Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders, rejecting any partial membership offers. He argued that such an offer would implicitly legitimize Russia’s control of occupied territories. The likelihood of NATO accepting this proposal remains highly uncertain given Russia’s continued aggression.
Read the original article here
Zelensky suggests that bringing unoccupied Ukrainian territory under NATO’s protection could effectively end the war’s “hot phase.” This proposition hinges on the idea that NATO’s involvement would deter further Russian aggression, providing a crucial security guarantee. The underlying assumption is that Russia, facing the potential for direct conflict with NATO, would be less likely to continue its offensive operations. This isn’t necessarily about immediate NATO membership for all of Ukraine, but rather a strategic security umbrella for the parts of the country not currently under Russian control.
This proposal immediately raises questions about the feasibility and implications of such a move. The integration of a country actively engaged in a major conflict into NATO is unprecedented and would almost certainly face significant political hurdles. The possibility of triggering Article 5 and a direct NATO-Russia conflict presents a major risk, something many consider a far more catastrophic outcome than the current situation. The discussion here therefore is not about a simple act of inclusion, but rather a complex calculation of risk mitigation.
Even if this security guarantee was in place, questions about how it would be implemented remain. Which areas would be considered “unoccupied,” and how would a line be drawn between NATO-protected territory and territory held by Russia? Defining these boundaries would necessitate difficult political negotiations and agreements, likely demanding concessions from both sides.
The potential for long-term instability, however, remains a significant concern. Even with a NATO security guarantee, there is no guarantee that the conflict would end completely. A cold war-like scenario could emerge, with continued tensions and potential for low-level conflict along the newly established borders. In this context, securing a lasting peace would depend heavily on geopolitical realities and the ability of both sides to navigate the post-conflict landscape.
The economic considerations surrounding this proposal are also noteworthy. Ukraine’s economy has suffered immensely during the war, and the long-term prospects for recovery remain uncertain. Integration with NATO would offer economic benefits, but the cost of rebuilding war-torn areas and sustaining a robust defense would remain substantial. Furthermore, even if successful in limiting the intensity of the conflict, the cost of NATO deployment and maintenance would be significant, an aspect that needs careful consideration.
The suggestion also highlights the complex power dynamics at play. Even if NATO agreed to provide security guarantees, there’s no guarantee that Russia would abide by the arrangement. Putin’s past actions and rhetoric suggest a deep-seated hostility towards NATO expansion, and the decision to escalate conflict remains a possibility. The proposal doesn’t offer an automatic solution and hinges on the willingness of all parties involved to adhere to a new strategic reality.
Ultimately, Zelenskyy’s suggestion presents a complicated equation with multiple potential outcomes. While the goal of ending the “hot phase” of the war is clearly desirable, the proposal’s viability and the potential consequences of implementing it demand careful consideration. The risks are undeniable, including the potential for escalating conflict, and the benefits are not guaranteed. It suggests a pathway towards peace but one that is fraught with potential perils. The path forward requires a delicate balance of risk assessment and strategic decision-making by all the parties involved.
The feasibility of this suggestion is heavily debated and depends on the willingness of NATO members, particularly those who could veto such an initiative. Furthermore, Ukraine’s current condition, including any internal issues, may not immediately meet all NATO membership requirements. However, this does not eliminate the need for discussing and exploring the idea as a pathway to a sustainable peace. In reality, numerous factors, from the political landscape of NATO countries to the unpredictable actions of Russia, must be considered. The outcome isn’t guaranteed and relies significantly on international cooperation and Russia’s reaction to a significant shift in the military and geopolitical landscape.