As signs of talks about West Germany model for Ukraine peace emerge, experts weigh in on feasibility

Ukraine is seeking membership in the NATO military alliance as a part of its plan to end Russia’s war, and recent reports suggest a West Germany model is seriously being discussed among Kyiv and its allies.
During a September visit to the U.S., Head of the Presidential Office Andriy Yermak said that accession to the alliance is part of President Volodymyr Zelensky’s “victory plan” to cease the bloody battles that have now been raging for more than two and a half years.
While Ukraine’s long-dreamed NATO membership has widely been dismissed as a non-starter, especially after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the alliance’s former Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told the Financial Times that there may be ways to make it possible.
“If there is a line that is not necessarily the internationally recognized border,” Stoltenberg told the FT in an interview published on Oct. 4.
Referring to the historical examples of NATO protecting West Germany or Japan’s security guarantees from the U.S., Stoltenberg, while warning that “no parallels are 100 percent correct,” suggested a membership model for Kyiv-controlled parts of Ukraine. Russia currently controls about 20 percent of Ukrainian territory.
“When there is a will, there are ways to find the solution. But you need a line which defines where Article 5 is invoked, and Ukraine has to control all the territory until that border,” he told the FT. His reference to Article 5 relates to the part of the NATO pact treaty that obliges all members to consider an attack on one member of the alliance as an attack on all in the territory defined by Article 6.
In an interview with the Kyiv Independent, Dutch Defense Minister Ruben Breckelman confirmed that talks are ongoing about the potential peace plan in which the Ukrainian-controlled part of the country enters NATO in the West Germany model. He did not elaborate further on the allies’ reactions thus far or how far the talks are at this stage.
But in an interview aired Monday with CBS News’ 60 Minutes, U.S. Vice President Kamala Harras, the Democratic party candidate facing off with Donald Trump on the Republican ticket in this autumn’s presidential election, suggested that talk of Ukraine joining NATO would be discussed at a later point.
Asked if she supported the expansion of NATO to Ukraine, Harris said it was one of the “issues that we will deal with if and when it arrives at that point … right now, we are supporting Ukraine’s ability to defend itself against Russia’s unprovoked aggression.”
The issue, along with further weapons supplies for Ukraine, is expected to be further discussed by Western allies at the Oct. 12 Ukraine Defense Contact Group gathering at Ramstein Air Base in Germany, which gathers countries almost monthly to agree upon support for Ukraine, and will this time be convened by U.S. President Joe Biden.
The Kyiv Independent asked six experts about the feasibility of a potential NATO membership model without Ukraine regaining control over all of its borders, whether such a peace formula would work, and whether it is actually deliverable or instead being used by the Ukrainian side as a negotiating tactic.
a non-resident senior fellow with the Transatlantic Defense and Security program at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA)
“(Regarding the feasibility of the NATO membership on parts of Ukraine) No. First, Ukraine needs to hold more terrain in Kursk (Oblast) and other areas for Russia to be deeply concerned. Second, NATO is too split to make a decisive move. Especially as Hungary and Slovakia deviates from what has been traditional NATO outlooks. Also, it is evident that Hungary sees an opportunity in a Ukrainian downfall to regain the limited areas that have a Hungarian population in Western Ukraine. So Hungary is ready to trade decades of European geopolitical instability for small-minded national chauvinistic goals. There are several countries that firmly believe that a Russian victory will lead to a larger, more devastating war in the near future, so a Russian win-peace plan is no peace; it is the overture and staging for a disaster that will spread over the continent.”
co-director of foreign policy and international security at the Kyiv-based think tank Razumkov Center
“There are some confusing messages coming from different sources. The official position of the Ukrainian government, President (Volodymyr) Zelensky, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has been that there will be ‘no trade of territory for a ceasefire, for peace.’ At the same time, we learned from international sources that first it was a kind of idea, and later on from kind of controlled leaks that there are some negotiations behind closed doors, considering these kinds of options: granting NATO membership for the government control territories in exchange for Ukraine’s government changing position towards these maximalist goals of liberating the whole territory of Ukraine in its international borders.
“It seems to me that there is a kind of game underway. Definitely, there must be some discussions about a possible compromise. I don’t know whether Ukrainian officials clearly stated their readiness to consider such a compromise. I suppose that, for the moment, there is some discussion like this. The Ukrainian government doesn’t admit it publicly. I don’t know how we can proceed if President Zelensky maintains the same position.
“It (possible NATO membership on Ukrainian-controlled territories of the country) hardly looks possible at the moment. We all know the position of other NATO members who are not ready to take such a risk. They don’t want to buy a ticket for war. It’s what they see in this proposal if it is to be realized.
“(A potential NATO membership on Ukrainian-controlled parts being part of a peace formula) could involve negotiating tactics, both with our partners and testing the ground of the possible compromises or negotiations with the Russian Federation. Our international partners are not ready to make such a radical political step; let’s talk about practical decisions of lifting the restrictions or providing more weapons. It’s important to see what the Kremlin’s reaction is. Again, if you assume that there are some closed-door talks or consultations on the second track, maybe these issues are now discussed somewhere in different formats. This is my assumption, and I can’t prove it by any evidence.
“(Regarding the ‘Victory Plan’) I also assume that Biden’s visit next week or this week to Ramstein (Germany for the Ukraine Defense Contact group talks) is probably one reason that he’s going to meet his European counterparts personally.
“Maybe he will discuss the details not just limited to Zelensky’s plan of victory but broader because we also know that the White House recently presented its own strategy for Congress, which is also confidential. Maybe that’s a format. Ramstein format will be the place where leaders, Ukrainian leaders, European and American leaders will try to find some common ground or to develop at least a common strategy. There can be talks in a wider format because there are 50-plus countries. I don’t think that President Biden is ready to share with all of them all the details. But at least in the NATO format, I think that they will be quite sensitive discussions.”
retired U.S. Lieutenant General and former Commanding General of US Army Europe
“I can’t comment on the Victory Plan as I have not seen it myself. I will say that I have zero confidence that Russia will ever fully live up to any agreement about Ukraine and therefore it is in the best strategic interest of the West to help defeat Russia and crush its imperialistic ambitions.
“I would also say that I trust President Zelensky and his judgment about what is best for Ukraine.”
Ukrainian political analyst
“Ukraine has not said anywhere that it will leave these territories. It did not publicly announce anywhere that the territories temporarily occupied by Russia would be left behind.
“Japan does not recognize the occupation of the Kuril Islands, but the rest of Japan’s territory is protected by the U.S. – in this case, we are talking about NATO. There is a similar story with Germany. When (partitioned) Germany joined NATO, a part of its territory was covered by Article 5. The rest of the territory joined later. In fact, this is not only about Article 5, but also about Article 6, which states that Ukraine joins NATO, but not the entire territory is covered by this. For example, continental France is covered by protection, but there are some islands that belong to France, somewhere in the distant overseas territories –  they are, well, not under the umbrella of NATO. And this gives Ukraine the opportunity to try to find the possibility of joining NATO, or at least receiving an invitation. Because Russia’s motivation was to attack Ukraine, so that it did not join NATO, as (Russian Foreign Minister) Lavrov said today in an article in Newsweek, to ensure that Ukraine did not have opportunities and capabilities.
“But, for example, today, the Moscow Times reported that (Russian President Vladimir) Putin does not go to his estates in Sochi because Ukrainian drones are flying there. That is, after two and a half years of war, Russia was not able to destroy all military capabilities here (in Ukraine). On the contrary, they grew.
“Today we have drones that fly to the aurora borealis – they can fly two thousand kilometers. Ukraine today has the ability to increase its military capabilities, to produce more weapons and to unite more of the world in order for it to help Ukraine.
“Second, it changed the very essence of the obligation. More than half of the Russian population wants Russia to leave the territory of Ukraine. The so-called ‘special military operation’ did not achieve any military plans and goals.
“That’s why Putin may consider agreeing to Ukraine’s accession to NATO, for example, in exchange for the lifting of sanctions or the return of usage of the gas pipeline through Ukraine. Therefore, it is possible to negotiate with Russia. Where possible, there is a comprehensive package of agreements. For example, maybe Russia could accept Ukraine joining NATO but with the absence of military bases and nuclear demilitarization, such that Ukraine will not have nuclear weapons. This is a possible scenario.
“Today there is another problem. Ukraine should be given hope and given a hand.
“Ukraine should be given a hand of support and help not only with weapons that immediately go to the battlefield. Ukraine is now making enormous contributions to the security situation of the West. But we also need an understanding that you and I stand on these common values, that it is queued up to enter NATO, and there is an application for entry. A partial introduction is a demonstration that we are together and that we are really doing the same job and they are waiting for us there. But (for the West to) just to use Ukraine and say, well, like, ‘Sorry, friends, we helped you, but like no (you can’t enter NATO),’ well, that would be a very strong blow to pro-Western sentiments (in Ukraine).
“Ukrainians have greatly contributed to weakening the enemy, the biggest enemy on the European continent. And the Ukrainians say that we would also like to join this big family, but a safe one, because we cannot be in a constant state of war. If Ukraine is left like this in the future, the results can be very negative for everyone.”
Ukrainian political analyst and Head of the Platform for Social and Humanitarian Initiatives and Innovations “United Coordination Center”
“I am not aware that such a scenario is in the plan. It seems unlikely to me, because it will not be accepted by (the Ukrainian) society, it will not be accepted by some of the NATO countries that avoid war with the Russian Federation at all costs. It will free Russia’s hands to attack other European countries in a hybrid way now (for example, with Moldova, Armenia, the Balkans and the Baltics), to incite other regions aligned with China’s actions in the Indo-Pacific region. Such a variant of freezing would be an anaesthetic that does not cure but would simply make the destructive processes less visible to the general public and more dangerous.”
Senior Lecturer in International Politics, Aberystwyth University
“I believe that Putin is not likely to accept such an offer, trading land in Ukraine for NATO protections for the rest of Ukraine, unless Russia is clearly defeated on the battlefield and Putin believes he has no better options. The whole purpose of invading Ukraine, both in 2014 and afterward, has been to remove Ukraine from NATO’s influence and return it to Russia’s control.
“Some members of NATO probably would be willing to offer Ukraine full membership or close to the equivalent protection sooner rather than later, although by no means all, in large part out of precisely the concern of a direct military confrontation between NATO and Russia that has dictated the hesitations over providing Ukraine with certain types of weapons or permission to use Western-supplied weapons in certain ways.
“Overall, then, I don’t think this proposal has a realistic chance of success.
“But Zelensky may be using it to try to move his supporters off the fence and push them to make more concrete security guarantees to Kyiv. He may also be trying to score a public relations victory over Putin, who keeps claiming that he is ready to negotiate (although, in fact, he has shown himself unwilling to consider any change in his demands or compromise).”