NATO guarantees for Ukraine: how and why Kyiv changed its stance in relations with the Alliance

Several months ago, a plan emerged in Kyiv and friendly Western capitals whereby NATO’s December foreign ministerial meeting in Brussels was supposed to become pivotal in Ukraine's relations with the Alliance. And this is no exaggeration. Rumours and discussions about Ukraine potentially receiving an official invitation to join were tied to this date. Kyiv – together with Washington (where the political environment had finally matured sufficiently for such a step) – was expected to convince sceptics to approve this interim but symbolically important decision by December.

The entire plan, however, rested on the assumption that the then US Vice President Kamala Harris would win the presidential election, ensuring continuity of power in the United States and key decisions by the Biden administration. 

As we know, the outcome was very different. Trump won the election, and the previous plans became irrelevant.

Nevertheless, the NATO foreign ministers’ meeting is still significant, but in an entirely different way.

Ukraine's rhetoric around NATO membership has changed dramatically.

It must be emphasised that Ukraine’s strategic goal – NATO membership – remains unchanged, but its tactics have been radically revised. 

In the past couple of weeks, there has been what diplomats call a "serious evolution". Its aim is to prepare for Trump's presidency and the pressure Washington will almost inevitably put on Kyiv to begin negotiations with the Russians.

The reactions of Brussels and the allied states to these changes have been mixed, ranging from irritation to explicit support.

European Pravda reports from Brussels on what happened during the NATO meeting and how Ukraine's position is changing.

The Ukrainian demands that didn’t exist

A few days ahead of the foreign ministers' meeting in Brussels, Reuters published a diplomatic leak – information about a private letter from Ukraine to NATO headquarters. In the letter, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha confirmed that Ukraine still seeks full NATO membership and "urged" NATO member states to agree to extend an invitation to Kyiv at the upcoming NATO-Ukraine Council meeting, which Sybiha himself would be attending.

This position cannot be called new. Ukraine has consistently urged NATO since at least early 2023 to take this bold step and issue a formal invitation to join. The most forceful call came during the NATO summit in Vilnius, where it was blocked by US President Joe Biden personally. Even after that, Kyiv's rhetoric and aspirations remained unchanged.

But the leak of this private letter now has many people confused. 

Some in Kyiv have even perceived it as a special operation against Ukraine.

Despite the rhetoric, no one expected an invitation to be given at the December NATO meeting. Numerous European Pravda sources have confirmed that even Ukraine's Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not expect that. The minister’s letter, although sent recently (less than two weeks ago), aimed merely to confirm Ukraine's unwavering desire to receive the invitation.

Instead, the publication of the letter (which some say was leaked from the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs) created a flood of publicity with the opposite message, with influential global media outlets reacting by writing that NATO was not ready to take steps towards Ukraine.

In reality, this issue was not and should not have been on the agenda of the meeting in Brussels, and Ukraine had issued no ultimatums regarding receiving an invitation at this ministerial gathering.

Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha spoke twice at NATO headquarters on Tuesday and made no mention of expectations regarding an invitation for Ukraine in the near future. The main message was the need to strengthen Ukraine's air defence to protect energy infrastructure. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte also announced that the NATO meeting would focus on discussing aid to Ukraine and not membership, while reaffirming that the position on Ukraine's eventual NATO membership remains unchanged.

But the public focus on "demands" that didn’t actually exist overshadowed another, truly fundamental shift in Ukraine’s position.

A security guarantee acceptable to Ukraine

On the day of the NATO ministerial meeting, Ukraine's Ministry of Foreign Affairs published an official statement. Formally, it marked the 30th anniversary of the signing of the infamous Budapest Memorandum, although it was released two days before the actual "anniversary".

The publication date is not a mistake or coincidence, though. 

In fact, the document was aimed directly at the NATO meeting. It outlines Ukraine's updated position on NATO membership. To further emphasise that the intended audience for this statement was the NATO ministerial meeting, Andrii Sybiha brought the original Budapest Memorandum to Brussels.

The Foreign Ministry’s statement truly changes everything in the context of the anticipated "peace talks" with Russia which the future US president and members of his administration are insisting on.

Reiterating Kyiv’s long-known position that with the signing of the Budapest Memorandum in 1994, Ukraine was stripped of its nuclear weapons without receiving any real security guarantees or instruments in return, the Ministry's statement emphasises that the "shortsightedness" of that decision has harmed not only Ukraine but the world in general. In particular, the West's inability to stop Russia's aggression against a state that voluntarily gave up its nuclear weapons has ruined global efforts for nuclear disarmament and pushed other nations to consider acquiring nuclear status.

Therefore, the Foreign Ministry stresses, the international community must not repeat the mistakes made 30 years ago. "Building a European security architecture at the expense of Ukraine's interests, rather than taking them into consideration, is destined to failure," the statement reads.

But these are fairly obvious arguments that have been put forward before.

The key point is the new position that Ukraine is now officially proclaiming based on this foundation.

The Foreign Ministry statement emphasises that "the only real guarantee of security for Ukraine, as well as a deterrent to further Russian aggression against Ukraine and other states, is Ukraine’s full membership in NATO".

The statement goes on to officially declare Ukraine’s rejection of all other forms of security guarantees that may be offered to Kyiv as protection from future Russian aggression.

"With the bitter experience of the Budapest Memorandum behind us, we will not accept any alternatives, surrogates or substitutes for Ukraine's full membership in NATO," the statement reads.

Readers may ask: what about the security agreements that Ukraine has signed since the beginning of 2024 with NATO member states and others?

Ukraine's new position is formulated in such a way as not to affect the agreements already signed, since all of them contain a clause stating that they are not substitutes for NATO membership. Moreover, most of these agreements explicitly state that they aim to bring Ukraine closer to NATO membership. Furthermore, all these documents avoid the phrase "security guarantees".

So formally, there is no contradiction here. The existing agreements continue to be valid. 

But sources emphasise that the shift in Ukraine's stance also applies to these agreements.

Several of European Pravda’s sources in Ukraine's government and among its partners have pointed out that there is now a sense that even the Office of the President is reassessing the value and future prospects of bilateral security agreements.

This shift has also influenced Ukraine's vision of the future format of agreements that might potentially be reached to halt the hostilities if pressure from Ukraine's partners and the international situation demands this. As is known, President Zelenskyy has repeatedly stated that any peaceful settlement would only be possible if Ukraine received security guarantees that would prevent a new Russian attack.

Until now, the question of what these guarantees might be had remained open. Now Kyiv has officially stated its position: the only acceptable guarantee is NATO membership. No other options are suitable.

"The option of bilateral guarantees from nuclear states is not being considered," one of the President’s team members explained.

The reason for this change has not been specified (and in fact, Kyiv is unlikely to ever publicly admit that a shift has taken place, given the amount of public and diplomatic effort invested in the security agreements). But it can be assumed that one of the reasons for this shift is the rather weak security agreement made between Ukraine and the United States. This experience demonstrated how limited the "ceiling" is for bilateral guarantees from this nuclear state.

What NATO thinks about "partial membership" for Ukraine

On matters as important as this Ukraine's Ministry of Foreign Affairs works in coordination with the president and his office, so there was no doubt from the start that the Ministry’s official statement on Ukraine’s new negotiation stance was not the result of Andrii Sybiha’s ministry acting alone.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has recently personally confirmed that changes in Ukraine’s position are indeed taking place. 

The president had consistently rejected any possibility of "partial NATO membership" – meaning membership that would cover only part of Ukraine – but he has unexpectedly changed his stance. He made two statements during the week saying that this option is now acceptable: Ukraine could join NATO without Article 5 applying to the entire territory.

The key condition, according to Zelenskyy, is that the invitation to join NATO must apply to the entire territory of Ukraine; only the application of the Alliance's collective self-defence rule may be limited to the territories under government control.

How could this be done?

Kyiv has left the answer to this question open. Zelenskyy mentioned that Kyiv has not yet received any proposals from its partners regarding the format of NATO membership. This is true: not only has NATO not proposed any such ideas, it has also shown no readiness to accept Ukraine's change of stance.

Moreover, some have reacted to this shift with irritation.

Misunderstanding on the part of bureaucrats is predictable. After all, Ukraine is not the first to modify its stance on key issues, and for diplomats in times of peace, this is not always easy to understand. Politicians tend to be more understanding.

In Brussels, there were even some voices in support of Kyiv’s new line.

"This is an interesting idea, and it’s worth thinking about how it might work," Czech Foreign Minister Jan Lipavský told European Pravda on the sidelines of the meeting.

European Pravda’s analysis remains unchanged: the main flaw of this option is that it is not feasible in practice, at least under the current Russian leadership.

But the most common reaction has been to ignore the idea. The simple reason for this is that now is not the time. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, in particular, carefully avoided going into specifics on the matter, explaining that the current discussions are about providing support to the Ukrainian armed forces, not about membership.

However, the official position that the only real security guarantee for Ukraine is NATO membership has also received public support.

Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis noted that while membership for Ukraine may not be the only option, it is definitely the cheapest for the allies. 

Air defence first

However, all these questions remain outside the scope of discussion for now. Despite the headline-grabbing statements and leaked documents, the discussion at Tuesday’s meeting focused not on membership, but on practical assistance to Ukraine from its allies.

Everyone was happy with that. For NATO and its members, it makes no sense to discuss the format of Ukraine's membership right now, just before a change in US leadership. What’s the point of negotiating or expending political and diplomatic efforts when the new administration’s policy is still unknown?

According to numerous European Pravda sources, Kyiv is also fully aware that at present, a NATO invitation is an unattainable goal. The current statements are more about signalling that Ukraine has not changed its strategic objective. Rather, Ukraine is now focused on practical military issues, just as its partners expected – particularly on agreements regarding air defence to protect Ukraine's energy infrastructure.

The signals from Brussels on this issue are cautiously optimistic. But only when Ukraine’s partners have met their previous commitments will it be clear whether this optimism is justified.

Sergiy Sydorenko

Editor, European Pravda, 

From Brussels

Translated by Daria Meshcheriakova