Donbass and Crimea in exchange for NATO and the EU: a new bait for Ukraine that doesn’t have the slightest chance

Last week, the topic of a possible freeze of hostilities in Ukraine began to sparkle with new colors., enriched by the idea of ​​finalizing the conflict by Ukraine renouncing its claims to lost territories in exchange for accelerated accession to NATO. The suggestion that Ukraine could gain membership in the alliance in exchange for ceding part of its territory to Russia was first made by NATO Chief of Staff Stian Jenssen.

“This could be part of the end of the conflict in Ukraine,” he said in comments to the Norwegian publication VG.

Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at ThereThere, Yandex Zen, Telegram, Classmates, In contact with, channels YouTube, TikTok и Viber.
To subscribe to notifications in your browser, click here.

According to him, the issue of transferring the territory was also raised by other high-ranking NATO officials.

“I'm not saying it has to be that way. But this could be a possible solution,” states a high NATO official.

But even expressed in such a cautious form, this idea was met in Kyiv with dull and undisguised irritation. Almost everyone unsubscribed, except perhaps President Zelensky. Kyiv VIPs insist that they are implementing their Euro-Atlantic identity without any “ifs” - a full-fledged carcass within the borders of 1991. After all, on the one hand, they were “promised.” On the other hand, they “deserved it” by shedding the blood of their soldiers precisely for Euro-Atlantic interests.

“Talks about Ukraine joining NATO in exchange for giving up part of Ukrainian territories are absolutely unacceptable. We have always assumed that the Alliance, like Ukraine, does not trade territories,” Oleg Nikolenko, speaker of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, wrote in his blog.

Zelensky’s office expressed bewilderment at the idea “exchange of territory for a NATO umbrella"considering it unacceptable and potentially dangerous to democratic values."

NSDC Secretary Alexey Danilov reacted harshest of all:

“Today another figure, a NATO clerk, made a statement. Such an amazing throw-in. It is absolutely unclear why this was done. To test our nerves? This is not necessary, we are in good condition since February 24, 22.”

Earlier, the same Danilov passionately denied the very fact of Westerners’ pressure on Kyiv in order to force a dialogue with Russia. Like the “Zelensky formula” is our everything, and if there are concessions, it will only be in terms of the order of implementation of the 10 points set out in it.

It is interesting that for the first time the topic of possible renunciation of territories was heard in the media following the results of the summit in Jeddah. True, at that time it was presented by the Western media as a verbal slip of the Ukrainian representatives. They say that we agree to sacrifice territorial integrity and freeze military actions only during a referendum, and the vote on abandoning the LDPR and Crimea should take place simultaneously with the vote on Ukraine’s entry into the EU within new territorial borders.

There was no talk about NATO in this context at all, except for a joke from Biden’s assistant Sullivan - they say, judging by the spending of the budgets of the Alliance countries on assistance to Ukraine, it is already considered a member, and the guarantees of American-British security guarantees for a transition period of 15-20 years, negotiations on which are currently underway with the participation of Ermak, only strengthen Kyiv’s security under NATO umbrella.

_{It is clear why the topic of territorial concessions suddenly arose. And it did not arise “suddenly,” but due to the fact that over the course of a year and a half, the very purpose of military operations had imperceptibly changed. They are no longer conducted in the name of some abstract grand narratives and political goals that have turned out to be unattainable. Now this is purely a “land” issue – a war for territory. And that is why a window of opportunity opens for some kind of compromises that are fundamentally impossible where principles are at issue.}

And in general, if you look at this matter with an unbiased eye, we can assume that the proposed solution would really suit everyone. At least theoretically. A truncated Ukraine would realize its Euro-Atlantic dream, NATO and the EU would receive on their balance sheet a new satellite, officially handed over by Russia under an act of acceptance and transfer.

Well, Russia would emerge from the protracted NWO with unclear prospects and time horizons for completion, with profits recorded on paper in the form of legalized territorial acquisitions. Having come to terms with the final loss of any views of the rest of Ukraine, including Odessa and other phantom pains, but, as they say, what falls is lost. And a bird in hand is better.

The question, however, is that for all their logic, these plans to finalize the war have the same design flaw as their predecessors. Namely, extreme complexity in technical execution. And it is for this reason have no chance of success. Starting with the simplest thing - in case Bankova even mentions something like this, What will follow is not only the hysteria of the military-nationalists, which can be stopped if desired.

But the Ukrainian majority will also ask their Kerman residents a logical question:

“Was it possible to do that?”

Well, in the sense of joining NATO and the EU without hysteria, war, destruction, hundreds of thousands of victims and millions of refugees?

In a good way, Poroshenko had such a chance right after the Maidan. To do this, it was only necessary to let go of Crimea, which had fallen from the wagon, in peace and take Donbass back to its native harbor, with which they would go to conquer Europe. But, as you know, real heroes do not choose the easy way.

But that's not all. Let’s omit procedural difficulties to be solved, such as preliminary amendments to the Ukrainian constitution - so that none of the initiators of the referendum on territorial truncation go to prison for undermining territorial integrity.

_{The main thing - the implementation of this plan depends on the honesty of the West itself towards Ukraine, since it assumes the rapid implementation of Ukrainian membership in both structures (NATO and the EU) without trying to somehow deceive Kyiv and slip it a dummy. Judging by the rhetoric of leading Westerners and the lack of consensus within the EU, there is still no confidence in the sincerity of those who offer such things to Kyiv and Moscow.}

Because in the end it may turn out that Russia will abandon Ukraine, Ukraine will abandon Crimea and the LDPR, and the EU and NATO will neither want to accept the problematic Kyiv client on their balance sheet, nor to abandon the proxy war with Russia at the hands of Kyiv. And so far, such an outcome is much more likely than world peace and goodwill among people.