Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has hinted at his willingness to accept a ceasefire with Russia, leaving parts of his country under occupation in exchange for NATO security guarantees for the rest. This is perhaps the strongest signal yet that the Ukrainian leader is prepared to consider ending the war without reclaiming all of Ukraine’s territory—an uncomfortable prospect for a nation torn apart by nearly three years of conflict.
In an interview with Sky News aired on Friday, Zelensky was asked if he could envision a scenario where NATO’s security assurances applied only to the territory currently under Kyiv’s control. His response was strikingly candid and, for some, alarmingly pragmatic:
“If we want to end the hot phase of the war, we must place the Ukrainian territory we control under NATO’s umbrella. This is something we need to do quickly,” Zelensky said, according to a Sky News translation. “Then, Ukraine can regain the other part of its territory through diplomatic means.”
Notably, Zelensky acknowledged that no such proposal had been made to Ukraine and admitted the difficulty of establishing NATO protection for only part of a country—a logistical and political impasse. NATO members have been reluctant to fast-track Ukraine’s membership due to the alliance’s mutual defence commitments, which could compel them to deploy their forces to repel future Russian aggression.
Compounding Zelensky’s challenges is the election of Donald Trump, who has pledged to end the war. While this might sound like a welcome development, the devil lies in the details—or lack thereof. Trump’s penchant for transactional diplomacy and admiration for authoritarian strongmen like Putin have raised fears that any “peace deal” he brokers could come at Ukraine’s expense.
The United States, under President Joe Biden, has ramped up its military support for Ukraine in recent weeks, including authorising Kyiv to use American weapons deeper inside Russia. These moves aim to strengthen Zelensky’s hand in potential ceasefire talks—talks that Trump is widely expected to prioritise once he takes office. However, Biden’s efforts come late in the game, a last-ditch attempt to shore up Ukraine’s defences as Trump’s return looms.
For nearly three years, the United States and its allies have insisted that Russia must not be allowed to maintain forces on Ukrainian soil. This position has become increasingly challenging to enforce. With Russian troops making slow but steady advances in the east and Trump’s imminent inauguration casting a long shadow, Zelensky may be forced into concessions that the West once deemed unthinkable.
The reality is stark: Ukraine’s war for sovereignty risks being reduced to a bargaining chip in the geopolitical machinations of its so-called allies. While Zelensky publicly maintains that any deal must serve Ukraine’s long-term interests, the signals from NATO and the US suggest otherwise. The focus is shifting from ensuring Ukraine’s territorial integrity to securing a face-saving compromise for all involved—except Ukraine.
The West’s indecision and half-measures have placed Zelensky in a near-impossible position. NATO’s reluctance to extend full membership, combined with its insistence on avoiding direct involvement, has left Ukraine fighting a war that is increasingly seen as its problem alone. Meanwhile, the looming shadow of Trump’s peace overtures adds yet another layer of uncertainty, threatening to reshape the conflict on terms that could leave Ukraine fragmented and vulnerable.
Europe finds itself unenviable, attempting to balance solidarity with Ukraine while contending with the looming shadow of an increasingly discontented Russia. A humiliated Moscow at Europe’s doorstep is not just a diplomatic inconvenience—it’s a geopolitical powder keg. Coupled with this is the domestic fallout across Europe: soaring inflation, stagnant wages, and a cost-of-living crisis that has fuelled the rise of far-right movements, bringing extremists closer than ever to the halls of power in several countries. The continent’s leaders must navigate a minefield of economic instability and security risks, knowing full well that an embittered Russia could weaponise its discontent through hybrid warfare, energy blackmail, or outright aggression. So, in the end, Ukraine is not so important.
For President Zelensky, the reality in Ukraine is equally sobering. After nearly three years of brutal conflict, a war-fatigued populace grows increasingly sceptical of Kyiv’s ability to regain lost territories. The declaration that NATO might only guarantee security for the areas Ukraine currently controls could be perceived as an admission of defeat—a bitter pill for Ukrainians who have endured immense sacrifice. The national morale is fragile, with citizens questioning whether the immense toll on lives and infrastructure has been worth it, mainly if the endgame compromises territorial integrity. Zelensky must walk a fine line, balancing international diplomacy with the mounting frustrations of his people, lest he lose the very unity that has sustained Ukraine through these darkest days.
Ultimately, Zelensky’s suggestion of a NATO-backed ceasefire may not reflect his true desires but his dwindling options. The West’s hypocrisy and strategic ambivalence have effectively left Ukraine to fend for itself—a stark reminder that lofty rhetoric often collapses under the weight of realpolitik.