Moreover, Nato has already chosen not to come to Ukraine’s defence when attacked by Russia; it cannot now commit to defend Ukraine under similar circumstances without undermining the credibility of Article 5 entirely, which would likely make the alliance implode. Bilateral or multilateral security guarantees from specific Nato members would also be unviable. If Ukraine’s guarantors were forced to honour their commitments in a war with Russia, other members would either have to enter the war despite their formal pledges to abstain or instead repudiate their commitment to mutual defence, with terminal consequences for the alliance as a whole.

In fairness, Zelensky is trying to make the best of a bad hand. Ukrainian forces, suffering shortages in manpower and ammunition, are currently redoubling their offensive efforts in Russia’s Kursk region in order to gain leverage for future negotiations and draw Russian troops from the front in Ukraine. So far, however, the Kursk incursion has come at a heavy price, as Russian forces gradually advance in Ukraine’s east. While some analysts have proposed Ukraine adopt a defensive strategy, Kyiv likely feels compelled to show initiative to sustain Western aid.

The Ukrainian President has proven adept at raising international support for his cause while demonstrating considerable personal bravery by staying to rally resistance during the Russian invasion. It’s understandable that he would lobby, however much in vain, for protection from the United States. Case in point, during his interview with Fridman, Zelensky repeatedly directed flattery towards incoming President Trump, praising him as “strong,” while criticising President Biden for being too hesitant in providing support to Kyiv.

Trump, however, already a Nato-sceptic, is unlikely to be swayed by such appeals. Zelensky must therefore contend with a bitter but unavoidable reality acknowledged nearly a decade ago by then-President Obama: Ukraine has the misfortune of living next door to Russia and thousands of miles from the United States. It must therefore find a modus vivendi with its more powerful and disagreeable neighbour to survive as an independent state. This grim recognition seems to be sinking in; recent polling shows a growing majority of Ukrainians favour negotiating an end to the war as quickly as possible, even if it means making territorial concessions.

While Zelensky has proven himself in many ways as a war leader, it remains to be seen whether he will distinguish himself as a statesman. One hopes that behind the public lobbying there is a hard-nosed recognition in Kyiv that the quest for Nato membership is quixotic. Were Ukraine to instead forswear its Nato ambitions and become an armed neutral, it would have better prospects for ending the conflict, defending its sovereignty, and rebuilding its economy and society with a new sense of national unity and purpose. Ultimately, that might be the real victory plan.

---

Christopher McCallion is a fellow at Defense Priorities.

chrisjmccallion

---