NATO Membership in Exchange for Territories: Consequences for Ukraine

Such proposals are unacceptable because they contradict Ukraine’s interests and meet Russia’s strategic goals

Ivan Sichen

As part of the world community’s efforts to find ways to put an end to Russia’s war against Ukraine, there has recently been an increase in the number of various initiatives to restore peace based on certain compromises on the part of Ukraine. In particular, some Western politicians and political forces propose a formula for Kyiv’s relinquishment of Ukrainian territories occupied by Russia in exchange for Ukraine’s membership in NATO. At this, NATO’s collective defense obligations will not apply to the mentioned territories. This approach fundamentally contradicts the position of Ukraine, which considers any territorial concessions to the Russian aggressor unacceptable. However, there is a risk that the USA and Europe will try to impose such an option on Ukraine. With that, the precedent of 1955 is mentioned, when the Federal Republic of Germany joined NATO on similar terms. In view of this, we will analyze the mentioned proposal in more detail with determination of its possible consequences for Ukraine.

Today, one of the main obstacles on Ukraine’s path to NATO membership remains Russia’s continuation of a full-scale war against our country, as well as the occupation by Russian troops of part of Ukrainian territories, which have de facto acquired a disputed status. According to the rules of the North Atlantic Alliance, countries with such problems cannot become NATO members.

At the same time, in reality, decisions regarding the admission of new members are made based on the interests and needs of NATO in each of the specific situations. Thus, after the start of the Cold War between the USSR and the West in the late 1940s, and with the aim of protecting Western Europe from the Soviet Union’s possible aggression, there was an urgent need to strengthen the Alliance.

That is why in 1955 the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG or West Germany) was accepted into NATO, despite the fact that the eastern territories of pre-war Germany remained under the control of the USSR and became an “independent” country – the German Democratic Republic (GDR or East Germany). Therefore, the leadership of the Alliance decided to extend Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty on collective defense only to the territory of Germany itself, within its then borders.

The Allies sign the Accession Protocol for Germany at NATO Headquarters, which was formerly located in Paris, in October 1954. Germany joined the Alliance in May of the following year.
Source: NATO

The authorities of West Germany agreed with the above-mentioned approach, as it allowed the country to receive security guarantees, as well as additional assistance in its post-war reconstruction from other NATO members. The majority of the population of West Germany supported such a decision. The restoration of the country’s territorial integrity was postponed for the future, although many doubted the reality of such prospects at that time.

And how wrong they were! In 1990, as a result of Moscow’s temporary shift towards rapprochement with the West and the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, Germany was finally reunited. After that, NATO’s collective defense obligations extended to the territory of the former GDR, which became part of the Federal Republic of Germany.

At the moment, Ukraine is similarly important for NATO, being, in fact, a bastion fortress of the West in the most problematic for it – the eastern or Russian direction. Due to the aggressive anti-Western policy of the rulers of the Kremlin, the USA and NATO are interested in Ukraine, which serves as a buffer zone and a significant factor in restraining Russia’s military expansion.

That is why today the idea of applying the precedent of West Germany’s membership in NATO to Ukraine is being promoted, namely, granting Ukraine the status of a full member of NATO without extending the Alliance’s collective defense obligations to the Ukrainian territories captured by Russia. At this point, it is proposed to postpone the return of the occupied territories to Ukraine for an indefinite period.

Undoubtedly, Ukraine’s accession to NATO fully corresponds to its strategic interests. However, the prospects of Ukraine’s membership in the Alliance in exchange for the relinquishment of occupied territories is a complicated and controversial issue that requires in-depth analysis. Thus, Ukraine’s agreement to the aforementioned terms of joining NATO would lead to rather ambiguous consequences. In particular, among them, it is important to point out the following:

Positive consequences:

• Ukraine would really receive effective security guarantees for the long term. Even after the restoration of Russia’s military potential, the threat of a new attack on Ukraine is removed since Moscow would not dare to get involved in an open conflict with NATO;
• establishing peace in Ukraine under the “umbrella” of the North Atlantic Alliance would eliminate threats to the life and health of the country’s population, as well as help to revive its economy and rebuild its infrastructure. This would contribute to the return of Ukraine and its citizens to normal life;
• joining NATO would strengthen Ukraine’s international position and increase its role and importance in ensuring European and Euro-Atlantic security as their integral component;
• Ukraine’s membership in the North Atlantic Alliance would facilitate its accession to the European Union. In the early 2000s, the countries of Central-Eastern Europe and the Baltic States took such a path.

Negative consequences:

Russian-controlled territories of Ukraine. Source: The Economist

• Ukraine would lose the possibility of reintegration of its territories, at least in the perspective available for analysis. It is likely that Ukraine would be able to return them politically only in case of a critical aggravation of internal problems in the Russian Federation or its disintegration, which is currently considered unlikely;
• together with the occupied territories, Ukraine would lose their population, which remained under occupation. Kyiv’s actual agreement to subordinate these territories to Russia would provide the latter with additional grounds for forced Russification and assimilation of Ukrainian citizens;
• a significant problem for Ukraine would be the legal aspects of the loss of access to the Sea of Azov with its port infrastructure, the ownership of coal, oil and gas fields of the Donbas and the Black Sea-Azov region, large industrial enterprises in the East and South of Ukraine;
• Ukraine’s territorial and other losses would lead to a weakening of its position in the Black Sea-Azov region in favor of Russia. Under such conditions, Russia would gain full control over the Sea of Azov and part of the Black Sea (between Crimea and the left-bank part of Kherson region), and its military infrastructure would move closer to the key administrative centers of Ukraine in Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Mykolaiv regions.

Under such circumstances, the decision of the Kyiv authorities regarding Ukraine’s accession to NATO in exchange for part of the territories would lead to a split in Ukrainian society and a deep political crisis in the country. In turn, this would create significant obstacles to the process of Euro-Atlantic integration of Ukraine, which would open the way for Russia to resume the war against our country.

But then, Moscow would not abandon its aggressive intentions, even if Kyiv agreed to territorial concessions. Russia would only temporarily suspend the “hot” phase of the war in exchange for Ukraine’s refusal to join NATO and agree to other Russian demands. Moreover, the pause in military operations would be used by Russia to restore its military potential and continue the war until the complete destruction of Ukraine.

A number of members of the North Atlantic Alliance, primarily Hungary, whose leadership pursues an openly pro-Russian policy, would oppose Ukraine’s accession to NATO. A rather cautious attitude to the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO is demonstrated by some other member states of the Alliance, in particular Germany. This is facilitated by the growing influence of pro-Russian, leftist and nationalist forces on the decisions of the governments of some Western countries.

That is, although the accession of Ukraine (without the occupied territories) to NATO should potentially lead to certain positive consequences for it, such an option is not only unacceptable for our country, but also cannot be implemented in practice. Therefore, in today’s situation, the only way out for Ukraine remains the continuation of the course of tough resistance to Russia’s full-scale aggression, with simultaneous rapprochement with NATO along with existing and future cooperation programs.

As part of this course, Ukraine adheres to the strategy of critical depletion of Russia’s potential, which will create conditions both for ending the war based on Ukrainian interests and for our country to join NATO. Thus, Ukrainian troops continue to restrain Russia at the front and undermine its military potential. The Russian army is still advancing, but the pace of its advance is slowing down. According to experts, the Russian troops are unable to make a strategic breakthrough in the Ukrainian defense, and their offensive capabilities on the current scale will be exhausted in the coming months.

Against this background, the USA and NATO continue to provide significant amounts of military aid to Ukraine. In addition, the problems of the perception of the so-called Russian red lines by some Western leaders are gradually being overcome, in particular regarding the supply of more sophisticated and effective weapons to Ukraine and granting Ukraine permission to use Western long-range weapons to strike targets on the territory of Russia. At the same time, the implementation of Ukraine’s cooperation programs with the North Atlantic Alliance at the level of full membership continues.

The given circumstances allow us to draw the following conclusions:

• some political leaders in Western countries, who intensified efforts to impose various options for ending the war on our country based on Ukraine’s territorial concessions, pursue their own interests or are under external (mainly Russian) influence;
• despite certain positive consequences for Ukraine from such proposals, they are unacceptable, as they contradict Ukrainian interests and meet Russia’s strategic goals;
• Russia’s and China’s proposals to end the war based on concessions from Ukraine do not find widespread support in the world. Most of the Western leaders understand the true goals of such “peace” proposals and reject any agreements behind Ukraine’s back;
• in view of the above, the only way forward for Ukraine is the implementation of Ukraine’s Peace Formula and V. Zelenskyi’s Victory Plan, which provide for the exhaustion of Russia on the battlefield as a prerequisite for forcing it to a just peace.