Ukraine: cede territory in exchange for Nato membership?
In an interview with the Financial Times, former Nato secretary general Jens Stoltenberg has hinted at the possibility of Ukraine joining Nato with only the parts of its national territory it currently controls. The security guarantees of the alliance would then only apply to these parts, just as they initially applied only to West Germany when the Federal Republic joined Nato in 1955, he explained. Europe's press discusses the idea.
Kyiv needs security guarantees
La Stampa believes Ukraine will abandon its goal of only agreeing to a ceasefire if all Russian troops withdraw:
“To end the war, Ukraine must ensure that it has not been waged in vain. This is the dilemma of the Ukrainian peace plan. How to end hostilities while guaranteeing its security not only against future Russian aggression, but also against political interference aimed at bringing the entire country back into Moscow's orbit? Zelensky says the document will be ready in November. One can imagine a ceasefire in which the territory occupied by Russia remains in Russian hands without state sovereignty being recognised.”
Not an option for Putin
Political scientist Volodymyr Fessenko analyses the Kremlin's priorities in Unian:
“When it comes to Ukraine's accession to Nato, we should not forget that this issue will probably be the most painful in the negotiations for ending the war. Ukraine's neutral status is one of Putin's main goals, which he will not give up so easily. In fact, this goal is far more important to him than the issue of the recognition of the occupied Ukrainian territories as Russian territory. That is why he will insist on the neutral status as one of the main conditions for ending the war in Ukraine.”
Carefully dose the use of force against Russia
In a Telegram post picked up by Echo, political scientist Vladimir Pastukhov explains:
“When the West talks about a compromise, it has the German post-war model in mind: a divided country, one part a US military outpost, one part a Russian one. ... But the war is still going far too well for Putin for him to go along with this model. Without the use of force he will push through the Austro-Georgian variant [neutrality, no NATO accession]. But the use of force, carefully dosed so that it is sufficient to persuade Putin to accept a compromise acceptable to the West but not enough to provoke Putin into the madness of a nuclear escalation - this is precisely the key challenge for the 'decision centres' in the West.”
A chance for four-fifths of the country
The possibility raised in the interview is at least worth considering, Helsingin Sanomat believes:
“Stoltenberg's statement is the first public proposal of its kind. Ukraine won't be able to achieve a military victory and Nato is not willing to deploy its troops to support it. In the current situation Stoltenberg's proposal is the least unrealistic idea to pave the way for Ukraine to join Nato. It would give four-fifths of Ukraine the chance to move forward. It's up to Ukraine to decide the terms of the negotiations, but at least a direction has been indicated.”
Division could be forever
The comparison with Germany is misleading, argues former Ukrainian ambassador to the US Valery Chalyi in Espreso:
“The bug of 'difficult but unavoidable decisions', supposedly based on historical analogies, has not only penetrated the weary souls of our partners, but is also spreading in Ukraine. Here it refers to the hypothetical formula 'exchange of territories for Nato membership'. The example of divided Germany could purportedly be applied here. But there's no comparison. ... Germany was first divided and only afterwards was the question of security guarantees for the Federal Republic and West Berlin resolved. In the case of Ukraine, the exact opposite is the case: a 'compromise solution' would divide the country. Perhaps forever.”
The Europeans don't have much say
US President Biden has postponed the meeting of the Ramstein Contact Group due to the hurricane in Florida. The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung comments:
“In the final phase of the election campaign, the Democrats can't afford to give even the slightest impression that a war in faraway Europe is more important to them than natural disasters at home. This basic stance won't disappear entirely until after 5 November, and Europe should be ready for this. It is also noticeable that the Europeans are not simply assembling the more than fifty participating states of the Ramstein Group themselves. ... Ultimately, it is not the Europeans themselves but America that will determine what course the West takes in Europe's worst war since 1945.”