NATO membership talks hinge on compromise over occupied regions

According to the Financial Times, Western diplomats and an increasing number of Ukrainian officials believe that solid security guarantees could form the foundation of a negotiated agreement. Under this agreement, Russia could retain de facto control over part of Ukraine's occupied territories, although this would not be legally recognised.

In light of Ukraine's reassessment of its wartime goals, the application of the West German model is increasingly discussed. This model involves the admission to NATO of the territory over which Kyiv exercises effective and real control, according to the British daily "Financial Times" on Saturday.

According to the "FT," Western diplomats, and increasingly Ukrainian officials, conclude that significant security guarantees could lay the foundation of a negotiated settlement in which Russia retains de facto, but not de jure, control over parts of the currently occupied territories of Ukraine.

The newspaper notes that neither Kyiv nor its supporters propose recognising Russian sovereignty over one-fifth of Ukraine's territory, as it would encourage the Kremlin to further aggression and seriously undermine the international legal order. It is anticipated there will be tacit acceptance that these lands should be recovered in the future through diplomatic means. This is still a sensitive issue for Ukrainians, at least publicly, but according to the quoted Western diplomat, giving up the territories to gain NATO membership may be their only choice.

There is more open discussion about the nature and timing of the security guarantees that Ukraine will need to support the agreement. In Washington, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reiterated his stance for accelerated NATO membership. However, as "FT" notes, the problem is that the US opposes going beyond the alliance's agreed position that "Ukraine's future is in NATO," that its accession is on an "irreversible path" and that it will be invited to join "when allies agree and conditions are met."

The US fears that offering defence guarantees under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty before the war ends would draw the US and NATO into the conflict.

However, some of Ukraine's allies argue it does not have to be this way. "FT" cites opinions, including those of Jens Stoltenberg, who ended his term as NATO Secretary-General this week. In an interview with the newspaper, he pointed out that the American security guarantees for Japan do not cover the Kuril Islands, four of which, occupied by the Soviet Union in 1945, are claimed by Japan. He also cited the example of Germany, admitted to NATO in 1955, even though it was divided, and only its western part was covered by the alliance's security guarantees.

“Where there is a will, there are ways to find a solution. But a line is needed to define where Article 5 applies, and Ukraine must control all territory up to that border,” said Stoltenberg.

"FT" notes that the West German model for Ukraine has been discussed in foreign policy circles for over 18 months and recalls that arguments for it have been presented by, among others, Dan Fried, former US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe; Kurt Volker, former US ambassador to NATO and special envoy of Donald Trump to Ukraine; Stoltenberg's predecessor Anders Fogh Rasmussen; and political scientist Ivan Krastev, and recently by Czech President Petr Pavel.

The newspaper also cites the opinion of American Cold War historian Mary Sarotte, who argues in "Foreign Affairs" that the conditions for NATO membership can be tailored to individual circumstances. As she wrote, Ukraine should define the border it can militarily defend, agree to the permanent non-deployment of troops or nuclear weapons on its territory unless threatened by attack, and renounce the use of force beyond that border except in self-defence. NATO membership on these terms would be presented to Moscow as a fait accompli.

She argues that the West German model "would be far better for Ukraine and the alliance than further postponing membership until Putin gives up his ambitions in Ukraine or until Russia makes a military breakthrough. This path would bring Ukraine closer to lasting security, freedom, and prosperity in the face of Russian isolation — in other words, to victory."