The situation in Ukraine has remained virtually unchanged since the Russian invasion began. All parties have maintained more or less the same position since the conflict began. The problem is that several years have passed since then, and now Ukraine remembers with greater virulence a proposal that it made from day one to end the armed struggle. The problem is not in Russia, it is on the side of the allies.
Join NATO. It’s neither the first nor probably the last time I’ll do it. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has again strongly suggested that areas of Ukraine under Kyiv’s control could be placed under NATO protection to stop the active phase of the war. However, he stressed that any invitation for membership must recognize all of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders, including regions occupied by Russia.
This approach, although hypothetical, points to a model similar to that of West Germany during the Cold War, where membership was offered to a divided country.
Criteria under that scenario. Zelenskyy made it clear that, under this scheme, Ukraine would seek to recover its occupied territories, but through diplomatic means. Although willing to consider international proposals, the president emphasized that he would not accept a plan that legitimizes Russian control over any part of Ukrainian territory.
According to him, without NATO protection, Ukraine would remain vulnerable to new attacks from Russia, as happened after the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which guaranteed Ukrainian sovereignty in exchange for giving up its nuclear arsenal.
Correct a mistake from the past. The famous Memorandum was an international agreement in which Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan agreed to give up the nuclear weapons they had inherited after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. In return, the United States, the United Kingdom and Russia committed to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of these countries, in addition to refraining from threats or use of force against them.
This agreement, although not a legally binding treaty, played a crucial role in the nuclear disarmament of Ukraine, which handed over the then third-largest nuclear arsenal in the world to Russia for dismantlement. Time judged that unrelated movement as failed, and despite the promises, subsequent events have questioned its practical validity (Invasion of Crimea, war in the east of the nation or the current Russian invasion).
In short, an example of how international guarantees can fail in practice, with devastating consequences for global security and stability, one that Ukraine has now reminded not to repeat and that NATO “include and protect” it as a legally binding member. ,
The lukewarm response. The debate about this approach is not new and has been under discussion in Western circles, but no proposals have ever been formalized. Meanwhile, Zelenskyy is trying to be receptive to possible ideas from President-elect Donald Trump, who could condition U.S. military aid on Ukraine’s willingness to negotiate with Moscow.
Trump’s preliminary plans, such as freezing front lines and delaying Ukraine’s possible membership in NATO, contrast with Zelenskyy’s insistence on the need for immediate security guarantees. But there is another problem that is difficult to overcome.
Article 5. Zelenskyy himself suggested that Ukraine could join NATO under a special condition in which Article 5 of mutual defense would not automatically apply to Russian-occupied territories. The reason? The problem lies in its essence, since the article establishes that an attack against one member of the alliance is considered an attack against all, which, in this virtual scenario, would mean involving all NATO countries in a conflict. direct with Moscow.
Thus, Zelenskyy suggests that the membership invitation should recognize the entire territory of Ukraine as sovereign, including occupied areas, but accepts that Article 5 should not be extended to these regions during the state of war. A solution that seeks to minimize the risks for NATO members, who, there is no doubt, seem to reject that invitation to Ukraine for fear of being dragged into the conflict.
But weapons yes. Therefore, it seems very difficult for Ukraine to end up joining NATO in the short term. Europe has many doubts, but not so much when it comes to offering weapons. In fact, the new Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutte, urged to prioritize sending weapons and military support to Ukraine before starting any peace negotiations with Russia.
According to Rutte, Ukraine must be in a position of strength on the battlefield to ensure better conditions in an eventual agreement. Despite war fatigue in parts of Europe and US President-elect Donald Trump’s promises of a quick ceasefire, the alliance stresses the need to bolster Ukraine’s defensive capabilities.
The war, which has lasted almost three years, has intensified in recent weeks. NATO’s stance reflects the need to maintain military pressure on Russia as Ukraine seeks support to ensure its survival. However, the lack of consensus among allies, challenges on the battlefield and political tensions in the West pose an uncertain outlook for the future of the war and Ukraine’s own security.
Imagen | Ministry of Defense of Ukraine
In Xataka | Ukraine has found an unexpected ally in the face of a lack of weapons: Russia and the “boomerang effect” of its kamikaze drones
In Xataka | Ukraine has a great arsenal to confront Russia. The problem is that more than 100,000 projectiles do not work
