The Financial Times publication, citing sources in diplomatic circles, claims that Western countries are currently discussing with the Ukrainian authorities a scheme for ending the war based on the principle of "territory in exchange for NATO."
That is, the war ends without returning to Ukraine the territories seized by Russia, but at the same time the part of Ukraine controlled by Kyiv joins NATO and is covered by the Alliance's security guarantees. But they do not apply to lands captured by the Russian Federation, which, however, continue to be legally considered Ukrainian territory.
We are talking about the "German" model, which ex-NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg previously spoke about (https://t.me/stranaua/171672), who called to end the war on the front line and accept only the Kyiv-controlled part of Ukraine into the Alliance. Just as during the Cold War, only West Germany was a member of NATO.
"Western diplomats and, increasingly, Ukrainian officials are coming to the view that meaningful security guarantees could be the basis for a negotiated settlement in which Russia retains de facto, but not de jure, control over all or part of the Ukrainian territory it currently occupies Neither Kyiv nor its supporters offer to recognize Russia's sovereignty over a fifth of Ukraine's territory. What is implied is a tacit acknowledgment that these lands must be recovered through diplomatic means in the future. Even this, for obvious reasons, is a sensitive issue for Ukrainians, especially when it is presented as the basis of a compromise with Moscow. Giving up land for NATO membership may be "the only game in town," as a Western diplomat told us, but it remains taboo for Ukrainians, at least in public.
The idea is also gaining momentum in official circles.
"I don't think that the complete restoration of control over the entire territory is a prerequisite," Petr Pavel, Czech president and former NATO general, told Novinky a Právo newspaper.
"If there is a demarcation, even an administrative border, then we can consider [it] as temporary and accept Ukraine as part of the NAO in the territory it will control at that time," Pavel said.
According to American Cold War historian Mary Sarott, Ukraine should define a defensible military border, agree not to permanently demarcate troops or nuclear weapons on its territory unless it threatens attack, and refrain from using force beyond that border unless for the purpose of self-defense (that is, not to try to return territories captured by the Russian Federation by military means - Ed.)," the publication writes.
At the same time, the Financial Times admits that this idea ("NATO in exchange for territory") has difficulties in implementation. Both because of the position of Russia (which is categorically against Ukraine's membership in the Alliance), and because of the lack of a clear understanding of whether the United States and other NATO countries are ready to do so.
"There is also a big question about whether the US, not to mention its European allies, will be ready to make the commitments necessary to protect Ukraine within the Alliance. The Biden administration has so far refused to budge on the issue of Kyiv's accelerated membership. Will President Kamala Harris feel differently about it? Could Donald Trump envision a West German model as part of his proposed "deal" to end the war? Can Zelenskyy sell this to his people?” asks the Financial Times.
