Ukranian pundits weigh the pros and cons of remarks by NATO official Ukrainian experts on Caliber.Az

NATO Chancellery chief Stian Jenssen suggests that Ukraine can get membership in the alliance in exchange for ceding part of its territory to Russia. According to him, this could be part of the end of the war in Ukraine, write the Norwegian media.

“I think the solution might be for Ukraine to give up territory and get NATO membership in return. I am not saying that it should be so. But it could be a possible solution,” Jenssen said.

One needs to have some idea of what the security situation will be like for Ukraine after the end of the war, Jenssen says, adding that the discussion about a possible post-war status is already underway and that questions about ceding territory to Russia have been raised by others as well.

“It is important that we discuss how to get through this,” Jenssen said and repeated Stoltenberg's words about what Ukraine should decide, when and under what conditions to negotiate.

Kyiv's reaction was not long in coming. Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council Oleksiy Danilov called the statement of this top NATO official, who spoke about the possibility of Ukraine's membership in the alliance in exchange for giving up the territories occupied by Russia, "info dump".

Mykhailo Podolyak, adviser to the head of the President's Office, also sharply criticized the statement of the NATO representative: “Exchanging territory for a NATO umbrella? Strange. That is, consciously go for the loss of democracy, the encouragement of a global criminal, the conservation of the Russian regime, the destruction of international law and the mandatory transfer of war to other generations.

How did the expert community of Ukraine react to this statement by Jenssen? And what is the reaction of the majority of the Ukrainian people to it?

These questions of Caliber.Az were answered by representatives of the political circles of Ukraine.

Volodymyr Fesenko, director of the Penta Center for Political Studies, notes that the reaction was negative.

“There is also a critical position of officials. It was expressed not only by Mykhailo Podolyak and Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine Oleksiy Danilov, but also by the press secretary of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry Oleg Nikolenko.

The position of the majority of Ukrainians on this issue is known from public opinion polls. The vast majority of Ukrainians (at least 80 per cent) do not agree to peace with Russia in exchange for giving up at least part of the occupied territories.

From this point of view, Jenssen either does not know or does not understand both the official position of Ukraine and public sentiment in Ukraine. He proceeds from a certain compromise position, which, in his opinion, can contribute to the end of the war. However, he does not understand that such a compromise is unacceptable for Ukraine. I will say more - it is hardly acceptable for Putin either. The president of the Russian Federation did not start the war to capture part of the Ukrainian territories. Back in December 2021, the Kremlin demanded official confirmation from the United States and NATO that Ukraine would never be in NATO. Apparently, Jenssen forgot about it,” says the political expert.

In his opinion, Jenssen's position is erroneous, including because of its unrealistic nature.

“But it is not only wrong. It is also harmful, because it leads us and NATO away from the solution of the main task - to inflict a military defeat on Russia in order to stop its imperial expansion. I would like to emphasize that this is Jenssen's private opinion, and not the official position of NATO,” Fesenko said.

Anatoly Pinchuk, head of the board of the Institute for the Security of Eastern Europe (Kyiv), began by remarking that Jenssen's statement itself was partially distorted.

“It was not a statement, but one of the assumptions. But even this assumption was later disavowed. Moreover, representatives of the aggressor country were also skeptical about this statement, in particular, Medvedev said that "from the point of view of Russia, all the territories of Ukraine, and especially Kyiv, are disputable". Of course, such an idea was extremely negatively assessed in Ukraine, both by government officials and representatives of the expert community.

“First, the issues of sovereignty and territorial integrity cannot be the subject of bargaining, even for the sake of membership in a military-political bloc.

“Secondly, any peace agreement with the current leadership of the Russian Federation is unacceptable. On the contrary, this war provides a unique chance for the West to neutralize the Russian military threat. Only for this it is necessary to form a vision of the future of Russia acceptable to the West and the entire civilized world and get rid of some unnecessary phobias.

“This war must end with a peace agreement. But this must be an agreement with the new government, which will have to de-fascist and demilitarize Russia. And such power can come as a result of a socio-economic explosion in the Russian Federation, as a result of a total economic blockade and defeats at the front. And it is precisely on achieving this that we should focus now,” the head of the institute believes.