Who is promoting the “NATO in exchange for Ukrainian territories” scenario and why?
8 October 2024 15:54
ANALYSIS
The Ukrainian government may consider ending the war in exchange for the temporary occupation of the territories captured by Russia. This was reported by the Financial Times. Some Western and Ukrainian officials have admitted that Ukraine lacks sufficient military forces, firepower and international assistance to liberate all the occupied territories.
Analysts also do not rule out the possibility that Kyiv may already be holding secret talks with Moscow on the terms of the truce. However, any concessions related to the territory remain politically difficult for the Ukrainian authorities, as the country’s population is strongly opposed to any compromise with Russia. Why there are more publications in the Western media about the likelihood of an agreement and whether this is due to the upcoming US elections, we looked into "Komersant Ukrainian"
What does the West want?
Western countries are stepping up pressure on Kyiv to persuade Ukraine to start negotiations to end the war, the Spanish newspaper El País reports. Although Ukraine will continue to receive financial assistance from Washington, the United States has refrained from providing long-range missiles that could be used to strike at Russian territory. According to El País, Ukrainian troops are unable to stop Russian offensive operations in Donbas, which have been going on since the summer.
“Time is working against Kyiv because of the upcoming US presidential election. Donald Trump’s potential victory in this election could lead to significant changes in US foreign policy towards Ukraine.”
El País
At the same time, the West and Ukraine may agree to negotiate with Russia on the basis of security guarantees in exchange for Russia’s temporary control over the occupied territories. This information is provided by the Financial Times, citing insider sources. According to an unofficial agreement, these territories should be returned to Ukraine in the future through diplomatic means, although no specific timeframe has been set.
At the same time, the Financial Times notes that the proposal, called “NATO in exchange for territories,” faces a number of difficulties. Firstly, Russia is categorically against Ukraine’s membership in NATO, and secondly, it is not entirely clear whether the US and its allies in the Alliance are ready to support such a scenario.
What does the Kremlin want?
Putin has stopped considering peace talks with Kyiv after the Ukrainian Armed Forces invaded Kursk region and is ready to fight until the Ukrainian state “collapses,” sources close to the Kremlin told the Explanatory Note. The dictator was allegedly angry about the situation – he decided that Kyiv had used the preparations for the meeting in Qatar as a cover for an operation on Russian territory.
“The Kremlin has concluded that we will destroy the state of Ukraine. Now it smells like a fight without rules, both sides are thinking of ways to make things worse for each other,” the source said.
The source added that Putin would not trade Kursk region in exchange for Donetsk or Luhansk.
However, political analyst Volodymyr Fesenko is confident that although Putin has a maximum goal of wiping Ukraine off the map, the dictator still has a degree of rationality. Analysing the realism of his tasks, he also thinks about negotiations, but not with Ukraine, but with the United States. I would add that in the case of Kamala Harris ‘s presidency, Putin will definitely not have such a chance. The current US vice president has ruled out the possibility of a personal meeting with the Russian dictator on a bilateral basis without Ukraine.
Moreover, the scenarios proposed in the Western media do not suit the Russian president either. Therefore, those who call the event’s proposals pro-Putin are wrong.
“Putin’s No. 1 goal is to categorically cancel the prospect of Ukraine’s membership in NATO. This is a fixed idea, to control part of our territories and to reduce the Ukrainian army.”
Volodymyr Fesenko
Negotiations this year: is it realistic?
After the US presidential election is over, we will see the first attempts to enter into peace talks, says political analyst Volodymyr Fesenko on the Youtube platform “News Factory”.
Follow us on Telegram: the main news in a nutshell
“Attempt No. 1 will be in Brazil on 18-19 November at the G20 summit. The US will probably be represented by Biden, possibly the new US president. Russia will be there, most likely represented by Lavrov. Brazil, which is a co-author of the so-called peace plan with China. There will be China itself and India. Moreover, if Zelenskyy is there, there will be an attempt to agree to start negotiations.”
Volodymyr Fesenko
At the same time, the political scientist is convinced that Ukraine should not reject Chinese proposals, because the only country that can put pressure on Russia and push it to end the war is China. Therefore, Ukraine now faces task No. 1: to stop Putin at the front in order to have a stronger position in the negotiations, the political scientist adds.
Is a referendum being prepared on Bankova Street?
Some experts have already analysed the reaction of Ukrainians to the “NATO in exchange for territories” scenario and predicted the actions of the Presidential Administration. According to political strategist Oleg Posternak, society will be divided into three parts:
- Those who are tired of the war and mobilisation will accept the end of the war without the return of territories as normal.
- A part of society will be categorically against such a scenario.
- Those who are tired of the war but are not ready to forgive the government for territorial concessions.
And although all this seems fantastic now, Posternak emphasises, a new reality may await us after 5 November.
“Bankova Street is preparing a scenario for a referendum on Ukraine’s accession to NATO, if the relevant decision is made.”
Oleg Posternak
Propaganda behind the publications of Western media
Valeriy Klochok, Head of the Centre for Public Analysis “Vezha”, in an exclusive commentary to Kommersant Ukrainskyi, notes that the proposals being covered by the Western media today are not new.
“I’m not surprised to see such publications that Ukraine is being offered something, and moreover, this proposal is more than two years old. Even Henry Kissinger said that he had changed his mind and that Ukraine should be in NATO, but only with the territories it controls.”
Valeriy Klochok
TheWest can consider many options, but everything will depend on what kind of treaty is being prepared, if any, Klochok says. But public comments about ending the war are very dangerous, because tomorrow the propaganda media will quote us and say that we agree to something.
“Now I see the following narrative being promoted: let’s agree to everything quickly. I now see more propaganda behind it.”
Valeriy Klochok
Let’s imagine that a decision is made to grant Ukraine membership status with the territories we control, but there will be no such wording in the treaty.
“It will probably say that the whole of Ukraine is a member of NATO, but, for example, Article 5 applies to the territories controlled by the Ukrainian government. The wording should be as clear and pro-Ukrainian as possible.”
Valeriy Klochok
There will be no peace at this stage of the war – philosopher Fukuyama
World-renowned philosopher and researcher of politics and international relations Francis Fukuyama believes that Ukraine will return to the borders of 1991, but not today.
“I don’t think you [Ukrainians – ed.] will have something like the victory of 1945, when Ukraine enters Moscow and Putin commits suicide. This will not happen. I believe that Ukraine’s ability to liberate the entire territory within the 1991 borders is a very difficult task at this stage.”
Francis Fukuyama
The philosopher is convinced that it is politically impossible for any Ukrainian leader to sign a peace agreement that would give Russia even a metre of Ukrainian land.
“In reality, we are going to negotiate the terms of a ceasefire, not peace. And this is a very difficult task. Yes, I think it is possible to have a ceasefire without your consent to territorial losses.”
Francis Fukuyama
Russia will not agree to a ceasefire until it feels it has to. At the moment, neither Russia nor the Russians are suffering enough to make it happen, the philosopher says.
So, one of the key questions remains: will the US be ready to commit to defending Ukraine after the election? Will Donald Trump, if he returns, offer a compromise similar to that of West Germany during the Cold War? Will Harris be more decisive in her support for Ukraine?
Follow us on Telegram: the main news in a nutshell
Author: Anastasia Fedor
