FT: Ukraine weighs territorial compromise for NATO membership

Ukraine is heading into its third winter of war with a sombre outlook. In the east, Ukrainian forces are losing ground to Russia’s relentless advances, despite the heavy toll on Moscow’s troops.

With over half of Ukraine’s power grid destroyed, citizens are bracing for long stretches without heat or light during the harsh winter months, Caliber.Az reports, citing the Financial Times.

As conditions worsen on the battlefield, the mood is shifting in Washington and several Western capitals. Once firm in their stance that Russia must be defeated militarily, some leaders are now contemplating a negotiated settlement. The idea is gaining traction that securing Ukraine’s core territories while conceding Russian control over occupied areas might be the only realistic solution.

However, Kyiv lacks the full support it needs to even pursue this scaled-back goal. The upcoming US presidential election in November looms large, with the possibility of Donald Trump reclaiming the White House. Trump has vowed to bring about a swift end to the war, raising fears among some US and European officials that Ukraine could be pressured into an unfavourable peace deal. Such an outcome, they warn, could have severe long-term implications for European and American security.

Even amid an escalating conflict in the Middle East, some Western governments are re-evaluating their priorities. Previously committed to the military defeat of Russian President Vladimir Putin, they are now considering how best to balance global security threats.

Behind closed doors, some Ukrainian officials privately admit that the country may not have the manpower, weaponry, or external support necessary to retake all the territory seized by Russia. Quiet discussions of a potential deal — where Moscow retains de facto control over occupied lands, while Ukraine joins NATO or receives security guarantees — are starting to emerge.

For this scenario to work, two ambitious assumptions must hold. First, the US and its allies must offer Ukraine a clear path to NATO or equivalent security guarantees, something they have hesitated to do. Second, President Putin must be convinced to negotiate, though his war aims include preventing Ukraine from joining NATO. Putin is unlikely to consider land-for-peace negotiations while his forces are making gains on the ground.

In a bid to strengthen his position, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy presented a “victory plan” to US officials in Washington last month. However, his two key requests—progress towards NATO membership and permission to use long-range missiles on Russian territory—were left unanswered.

Whether the goal is military victory or a negotiated settlement, Ukraine’s western allies must act swiftly to improve Kyiv’s leverage. The Kremlin will only be compelled to negotiate if the costs of continuing the war grow too steep. Any settlement that allows Ukraine to rebuild and integrate into the EU will require solid security guarantees.

In the remaining months of his presidency, US President Joe Biden, along with European allies, must bolster Ukraine’s military and diplomatic standing. The aim should be to put Kyiv in the best position possible before the US election. If Kamala Harris prevails, she will need a strong foundation to continue supporting Ukraine; if Trump wins, it will be critical to protect Ukraine’s future amid uncertain times. The outcome of the war remains unclear, but it is within the West’s power to help Ukraine regain the upper hand.

By Khagan Isayev