January 6, 2025 - 4:00pm
On Sunday, podcaster Lex Fridman released an extended interview with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The conversation focused on how to end the war in Ukraine and the conditions on which he would be willing to negotiate a deal with Vladimir Putin.
Zelensky’s terms echoed the points laid out in his “Victory Plan” released in October. He indicated Ukraine would be willing to negotiate a ceasefire in exchange for receiving Nato membership. According to the Ukrainian leader, Nato’s commitment could be limited to the territory still held by Kyiv, and while Ukraine would not concede the territories occupied by Russia, he stated that the goal would be to regain them “diplomatically”. He also demanded more military assistance to bolster Ukraine’s bargaining position, repeatedly stating that Putin has no interest in ending the conflict and will only negotiate if forced to.
The proposal for Nato membership is simply not realistic, however. Even if the alliance could fudge its own prohibition on admitting countries with ongoing conflicts or territorial disputes, giving Ukraine a membership action plan now would simply be a non-starter for a ceasefire, let alone for a long-term settlement of the conflict. Russia will not accept it.
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.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeZelensky needs to visit Singapore!
After 2 years my comments actually appear ! :-))))))
Zelensky, the minority dictator, needs to go. With regime change, things change. Nato membership won’t be a thing anymore. Those pushing for Nato membership are simply evil – because they know what it means.
All well and good – except that Ukraine being an ‘armed neutral’ is also unacceptable to Russia. As is any deal that leaves Ukraine as an independent nation in any meaningful way. Russia’s demand is to have Ukraine defenceless and obedient, like East Germany. If that is where you want this to go, please say so openly. If not, how about getting into some detail about how Ukraine could avoid subjugation to Russia? And about what would prevent Putin’s Russia form putting the squeeze on the next country after that?
How did East Germany avoid subjugation to Russia?
???????
East Germany was totally subjugated to the USSR. Proverbially they were the most neutral country in the world – they were so neutral that they did not interfere even in their own internal affairs. They only broke free in 1989 aftef the Soviet Empire collapsed – the empire that Putin is now working on bringing back.
Were you really ignorant of all this, or were you trying to make a different point?
When ever did Russia say that Ukrainian armed neutrality was unacceptable to Russia? Even during the Soviet Union, the armed neutrality of e.g. Finland and Austria was no issue for the USSR. The Minsk Agreements contained no restrictions on Ukrainian defence.
Putin’s latest demands include a maximum size of the Ukrainian army. Apart from tidbits like refusing to negotiate with the Ukrainian president (Zhelensky) and demanding a different negotiating partner. Putin wants Ukraine defenceless and obedient – and unable to e.g. associate with the EU. As to whether the Ukrainian subservience is mislabelled as ‘armed neutrality’ or something else, that is probably not important.
NATO needs Ukraine. They have done excellent work in killing lots of Russian soldiers. That is a skill-set NATO will need when it inevitably has to fight Russia in the near future.
Quite. Zelensky seems to have been briefed on Trump’s plans, since Zelensky touted that Ukrainian soldiers could replace withdrawing US ones.
How do you achieve a modus vivendi with a rabid dog?
I had a blackout for a moment there, and thought the author was talking about Canada, Mexico, and Greenland. Crazy, of course.