As President-elect Trump nears Inauguration Day, discussions about potential solutions for a ceasefire in Ukraine have gained momentum, with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky indicating possible compromises to end the conflict along the eastern front lines.
Zelensky recently suggested a provisional acceptance of Russian-occupied territories, contingent on Ukraine gaining NATO membership for regions still under Kyiv’s control. This proposal faces huge challenges in negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who staunchly opposes Ukraine’s NATO membership and has used this stance to justify the ongoing war.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky indicates a willingness to compromise for peace along the eastern front lines
Although Zelensky’s plan remains somewhat ambiguous, it signals an initial framework for discussions with the incoming Trump administration, which has appointed Keith Kellogg as special envoy to Ukraine. Kellogg, a retired general and former national security adviser, has laid out detailed proposals to address the conflict.
Since the war began in 2022, Zelensky has consistently advocated for reclaiming all Ukrainian territory, including Crimea. However, his expansive ambitions have narrowed after setbacks over the past two years, which followed earlier military successes in Kharkiv and Kherson.
The failure to replicate those victories and the continued strain on Ukraine’s defenses have seemingly prompted Zelensky to reassess his approach, particularly in light of Trump’s election victory. Trump has pledged to resolve the war before taking office, and Zelensky has hinted at concessions to achieve peace.
According to Benjamin Friedman of Defense Priorities, this move reflects the harsh realities on the ground, including Ukraine’s inability to reclaim lost territory and its struggle to retain what it still holds. Additionally, he noted the changing political landscape in the United States, which may result in reduced support for Ukraine.
In several recent interviews, Zelensky has stated his willingness to negotiate the status of Russian-occupied regions diplomatically while seeking NATO protection for areas under Ukrainian control. He views this as a means to end active hostilities and secure long-term stability.
Serhii Kuzan, a Ukrainian Security and Cooperation Center official, emphasized that Kyiv’s priority is to save lives and establish enduring security strategies rather than hastily concluding the war. While Ukraine seeks NATO membership as a key objective, it has also engaged in consultations with the incoming U.S. administration.
Experts like Branislav Slantchev, a political science professor at the University of California, San Diego, doubt Putin would accept Ukraine’s NATO membership, as it undermines the narrative used to justify the war. Meanwhile, NATO leaders, including Secretary-General Mark Rutte, have refrained from making concrete promises, focusing instead on increasing military aid to Ukraine.
Although President Biden and NATO allies have expressed long-term support for Ukraine’s NATO aspirations, the Trump administration appears less likely to extend such guarantees. Kellogg, in a past policy article, argued against provoking Russia with NATO expansion efforts.
While alternative security arrangements short of NATO membership have been suggested, Ukraine remains skeptical of such guarantees, given the broken promises of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. Ukrainian officials have stressed that only legally binding agreements ensuring full NATO membership can address their security concerns.
As Friedman observed, Ukraine’s aspirations for NATO membership may at the end be the price for peace. He argued that Ukraine’s geographic proximity to Russia necessitates pragmatic adjustments to its long-term security strategy, even if it means relinquishing certain goals.
This change underscores the complicated balancing act required to negotiate a ceasefire, with Ukraine, Russia, and Western powers weighing competing interests and objectives.
