Ukrainian voice on NATO and negotiations

Message from beyond the Ukrainian curtain. Baltic play-tigers. New EU tariffs against Ukrainian goods. Coalition of the Unwilling

Today I’ll be talking about peace talks and geopolitics. The European Coalition of the Unwilling, Brussels’ plans for renewed tariffs against Ukrainian produce, analysis of Ukraine’s negotiation delegation in Istanbul, and Ukrainian nationalist disdain at Baltic and European indifference in combating the Russian threat they claim to be so worried about.

Zelensky is currently in Turkey, as his delegation meets with its Russian counterparts

I’ll start with something that might be a bit more interesting - answers to some questions I asked a young leftwing historian living in a major east Ukrainian city, one that has certainly not been unaffected by the war. Since it’s quite easy to be charged with various thought crimes for some of the things he says, he will remain anonymous:

How do you feel about negotiations?

To begin with, I would like to draw attention to the fact that in Ukraine a discussion about the causes of the war is practically impossible, since raising questions about the role of Ukraine's course towards NATO membership or about the NATO responsibility in this war can be regarded as "justification of Russian aggression", which led to criminal prosecution - and this actually happens to ordinary people who simply said something thoughtlessly at the everyday level.

I am in favor of negotiations, but not to resolve secondary issues or to achieve a ceasefire that the sides will simply use to prepare for further slaughter, but to resolve the fundamental causes of war, which sides, however, understand differently. Without this attempt to accept the real contradictions between states there is only talk about negotiations without actual desire for them. If it comes to the Ukrainian government - what desire to end the war we can speak about if both Zelensky and Yermak [head of the presidential administration - EIU] have repeatedly called the "red line" intransigence on the issue of NATO membership, which the enemy namely considers the fundamental reason for the war? Moreover, Zelensky is showing intransigence on the issue that has never been approved nationwide in Ukraine and by refusal from which Ukraine actually loses nothing cause NATO won’t accept Ukraine till the war continues and in turn Russia would continue the war until Ukraine doesn’t refuse from NATO membership.

As for the Russian responsibility for sabotage of peace talks, its leadership complicates the start of negotiations and the conclusion of peace by posing territorial claims, especially to newly occupied Zaporizhia and Kherson regions. Understandable as a lever of blackmail in negotiations and logistically as providing a road to Crimea, these claims in fact expose the imperialist nature of Russian invasion, which contradicts the "anti-colonialist" rhetoric which Putin addresses to the countries of Global South.

I believe that instead of driving itself into a dead-end position where every new step only worsen the conditions and passively wait for "peace through force" with external help, the Ukrainian leadership could start negotiations with a concession from which it loses nothing - with a return to neutral status of country according to the Declaration of Sovereignty of Ukraine and refusal of chauvinistic humanitarian internal policy which declares that "there are no Russians in Ukraine" and contradicts the Constitution. If after that Russia continues to insist on territorial claims and continues war, then Putin's hypocrisy would become obvious even to neutral countries, and to Ukrainians who are hesitant now about the expediency of further struggle.

It is not about capitulation or unconditional acceptance of Putin's demands, but about the ability to see the reality that we have, in particular due to Zelensky's mistakes (for example, when he stopped peace negotiations in March 2022 or in fall 2022 after the successful counteroffensive in Kharkiv region when the opportunity to negotiate “from a position of strength” really existed). It is about the ability to distinguish, without nationalistic infantilism, the real national interests of all sides – be able to separate the interests of the Russian leadership from the national interests of Russia, which NATO expansion has really contradicts with. However, discussing this now is prohibited, which does not contribute to understanding the war, while without full understanding of war causes by the ordinary Ukrainians any peace, even if it is achieved, won’t be durable.

How does Ukrainian society and media feel about negotiations?

I don't know how society feels, because I don't trust polls during war. I know that many are angry at the government for the lack of a specific plan with terms and responsible for its fulfillments, for lack of prospects and the rhetoric of self-persuasion ("strong decisions", "pressure", "victory"). I have also observed how many ordinary people stubbornly refuse to analyze actual and changing situation, simply continuing to wish for Russia to disappear - that is, turning a blind eye to the problem. The funniest thing is when people advocate continuing the war in its current form, without a plan, but avoid conscription by themselves. This is the biggest shock I discovered for myself during the war as a mass phenomenon – most of people don’t see the contradiction in their words and deeds.

I don't watch TV, but internet media that are allowed to be in opposition to the government, such as “Ukrainska Pravda” and nationalist bloggers (Yanina Sokolova, Yurii Butusov) criticize the war politics of government only in "technical" aspects - that the war is being waged "wrongly". They don’t ask whether the conditioning the war continuation by the aim to join NATO, which Zelensky sticks to, really corresponds to the goals and interests of the Ukrainian nation. And thus those journalists, in my opinion, share with the authorities the responsibility for outcomes of this war – for the spread of the mistaken idea that the NATO membership is a security guarantee, while, at least as we observed for decades, it can be considered rather as a factor of destabilization for Ukraine.

The only Ukrainian journalist whose point of view I consider realistic and logically correct in the current situation is Ostap Drozdov.

The analysis above is particularly helpful in focusing on the fact that dying for NATO is never something that most Ukrainians agreed to. This is even admitted by pro-NATO politicians in Ukraine. On May 3, MP Viktoria Hryb from the Atlanticist party ‘European Solidarity’ stated the following:

Our Constitution didn’t always mention NATO. This was added *without a referendum—no one asked the people. First, it was added, and only later did we see that we were actually making progress in negotiations... And if not for those closed iron doors [of NATO], perhaps the situation would have been slightly different. If we had been admitted to NATO in 2008... Then there would have been much higher chances of joining NATO compared to later, when it became clear... Because countries think first of their own interests; they’re very pragmatic. And we only added this to the Constitution afterward. In my view—this is my position—our priority should be advancing toward the European Union

Note that the above MP is from ex-president Petro Poroshenko’s party. The statement could be seen as a criticism of Zelensky, who never shuts up about Ukraine’s need to join NATO. Lately, European Solidarity MPs have been urging Zelensky to ‘be quiet’ a bit more often, given his constant antagonization of Trump, and the fact that his strategy of forever-war isn’t without risks.

They may be positioning themselves as more open to abandoning NATO accession, but they still believe this is simply a temporary measure - it was Poroshenko, after all, who put striving towards NATO membership in Ukraine’s constitution in 2017. His current, obviously opportunistic ‘concessions’ are probably unlikely to convince the Kremlin.

Nevertheless, Ukraine’s government is adamant that the country will join NATO. On May 8, the Ukrainian cabinet stated yet again that Ukraine’s membership is ‘is the only alternative’.

This reminder about Ukraine’s NATO future was made by Olga Stefanishina (in white), who is vice premier of European and Euro-Atlantic integration and minister of justice.

They seem to care little what NATO itself says - the alliance released its yearly report in late April, and unlike the report from 2024, this time was no mention of Ukraine’s entry to NATO.

Indeed, despite the fact that NATO neutrality is the main Russian demand, Reuters reported on May 14 that officials in Kyiv ‘say agreeing to Ukrainian neutrality is a red line they will not cross.’ So why even bother to talk with the Russians?

It’s another season of show politics, broadcast live by Zelensky’s Kvartal 95 studio. But this time, there’s a special member in the trans-Atlantic audience they are performing for.