Nato membership for Ukraine: a path to peace or prolonged conflict?

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's recent comments suggesting that NATO protection for Ukrainian territories still under Kyiv's control could end the "hot phase" of the war with Russia have sparked intense debates in international policy circles. This proposal, which seeks to balance Ukraine's security needs with the realities of an ongoing conflict, introduces a new phase in the war. However, it raises complex questions about the future of Ukraine, the role of NATO, and the long-term stability of Eastern Europe.

A pragmatic approach or dangerous concession?

Zelenskyy's proposal marks a significant departure from Ukraine's previous stance of rejecting any compromise on territorial integrity. For months, Kyiv has insisted on the full restoration of its internationally recognized borders, including the Donbas region and Crimea. However, by offering NATO protection only to areas under Ukrainian control, Zelenskyy seems to be searching for a middle ground. The hope is that this NATO-backed defensive perimeter could lead to a de-escalation, offering Ukraine some security while still leaving room for future negotiations.

This approach, while pragmatic, risks implicitly acknowledging Russia's territorial gains, at least in the short term. If NATO membership were extended only to the government-controlled areas of Ukraine, it could be seen as de facto recognition of Russian control over occupied regions like Crimea and parts of the Donbas. While this might bring some relief from active combat, it could also create a precedent for rewarding territorial aggression, potentially weakening international norms on sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Challenges and implications

Zelenskyy's proposal faces several substantial hurdles, not only in Russia's likely response but also within NATO and among its allies.

NATO's reluctance and internal divisions

NATO's hesitation to fast-track Ukraine's membership is one of the primary obstacles. The alliance has been reluctant to provoke a direct confrontation with Russia, especially given NATO's Article 5 commitment to collective defense. This obligation could draw member states into a broader war, something many NATO members want to avoid. Additionally, NATO is divided on the issue. Countries like Poland and the Baltic states, which have historical fears of Russian aggression, strongly support Ukraine's NATO membership. In contrast, other members, notably Germany and France, are more cautious, concerned about the geopolitical and military consequences of such a move. This internal division complicates any potential decision, as NATO must navigate the balance between solidarity and security concerns.

Territorial integrity and the Russian response

Zelenskyy's insistence that any NATO invitation must recognize Ukraine's internationally recognized borders introduces another challenge. The areas currently occupied by Russian forces-Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk-are not just symbols of Ukrainian sovereignty but also critical to the ongoing conflict. Russia has consistently framed these regions as part of its own territory, and any effort to include Ukraine in NATO without resolving the status of these regions would likely be seen as a red line by Moscow. A NATO-backed Ukraine, without full territorial restoration, risks further entrenching the divide between the two countries and provoking a more aggressive response from Russia.

US policy uncertainty

The future of U.S. support for Ukraine is increasingly uncertain. With the 2024 U.S. presidential election outcome, the potential shift in U.S. policy-when President Donald Trump takes office-raises concerns about the continuity of American backing. Trump has been critical of NATO in the past and has expressed a willingness to pursue closer ties with Russia. Such shifts could undermine NATO's collective resolve and create an unpredictable environment for Ukraine's security. The U.S. has been a critical ally in supporting Ukraine militarily and economically, but this support may waver depending on the political leadership in Washington.

The risk of a frozen conflict

A key concern with Zelenskyy's proposal is the possibility of creating a "frozen conflict" scenario, akin to what has happened in regions like South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia or Transnistria in Moldova. If NATO were to extend protection only to parts of Ukraine, it could lock in the status quo of contested territories, leaving large swaths of the country under Russian influence. Such an outcome would likely create a protracted instability, undermining Ukraine's sovereignty and potentially fueling further conflicts in the region. This is especially troubling given that many of these areas have already suffered immense human and material losses.

The role of the European Union

In addition to NATO, the European Union's involvement in Ukraine's future cannot be overlooked. The EU has played a pivotal role in supporting Ukraine's economic and political reforms, and its potential role in a post-war reconstruction process would be crucial. If NATO membership for Ukraine is on the table, it's essential that the EU remains aligned with NATO's military efforts to ensure a holistic approach to Ukraine's integration into the European fold. A fractured strategy, with NATO focused on military defense and the EU on economic recovery, could create dissonance and slow Ukraine's long-term recovery.

Ukraine's internal stability

Internally, Zelenskyy's NATO proposal may face mixed reactions. While a significant portion of the Ukrainian population sees NATO membership as a path to security and a guarantee of sovereignty, there is also the risk of deepening internal divisions. Some Ukrainians may perceive NATO membership as compromising territorial integrity in the short term, while others may feel that the ongoing war has only heightened their desire to secure Ukraine's place in the Western sphere. How Zelenskyy balances these domestic expectations with external geopolitical pressures will be a critical factor in determining the feasibility of his proposal.

The role of non-state actors

Non-state actors, such as paramilitary groups and Russian-backed separatists, also complicate the situation. These groups control significant territory in eastern Ukraine and are unlikely to lay down arms simply because NATO intervenes. The existence of such actors underscores the complexity of any peace process. A NATO-backed Ukraine could face persistent instability, with insurgents continuing to destabilize areas under Kyiv's control, undermining both peace efforts and international confidence.

Russia's internal dynamics

Russia's internal political situation also plays a role in shaping the future of the conflict. The Kremlin's hardline stance is largely driven by its fear of NATO expansion and its desire to maintain influence over its "near abroad." However, domestic challenges, such as economic turmoil and growing public discontent over the war, could alter Russia's calculus. The possibility of internal political pressure on Putin, while speculative, adds another layer of uncertainty to the situation. If Russia faces increasing internal unrest, it could either escalate the conflict further or, conversely, seek a negotiated settlement to restore its position domestically.