Despair or strength: what NATO's tactics reveal about Kyiv's strategy.

During the meeting of NATO foreign ministers, numerous issues were on the agenda, but the primary focus, as has been the case since the onset of the infamous Putin's "special operation" in February 2022, was Ukraine. This time, however, the discussions among the Alliance's top diplomats were taking place against the backdrop of an impending change in the White House and the active preparations of newly elected President Donald Trump's team for decisive actions that could potentially bring an end to the Russian-Ukrainian war.

As of now, it remains unclear what specific "peace" proposals the future occupant of the Oval Office intends to present to Kyiv and Moscow. Nevertheless, all scenarios being considered within the circle of the 78-year-old leading Republican suggest that concessions from both sides will be necessary. Specifically, Donald Trump is almost certain to demand that Ukraine abandon its military goal of regaining control over the borders as they were in 1991. Amidst this, President Zelensky has noticeably softened his rhetoric recently, allowing for the possibility of temporary territorial concessions in one form or another. However, in return, they expect security guarantees from their allies. Just before the Brussels meeting, the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry issued a statement asserting that "the only real security guarantee" is "full membership in NATO." Thus, the Sibiga agency made it clear that they would only agree to possible demands from Mr. Trump under such conditions. Meanwhile, alternative security guarantees would not suffice for Ukraine, as emphasized by the Foreign Ministry.

At the meeting in Brussels on December 3, Foreign Minister Andriy Sibiga attempted to convey to allies face-to-face that Ukraine "will not accept" any security guarantees other than NATO membership. Moreover, our country's chief diplomat intended to demand that colleagues reach a consensus and extend an invitation to join the Alliance to Kyiv before Donald Trump returns to the White House, as his appointees may impose a commitment to refrain from admitting Ukraine into NATO for the next 10-20 years.

However, even before the "meeting" in Brussels, Reuters reported that the chances of foreign ministers from 32 countries recommending their leaders to invite Ukraine to NATO at this time were, to put it mildly, slim. As explained by one unnamed senior diplomat, "it will take weeks and months to reach a consensus," making it unreasonable to expect such a step from the foreign ministers on December 3-4. According to him, partners are currently focused on how to strengthen Ukraine's position ahead of potential negotiations in 2025. "The best way to do this is to increase funding, arms supplies, and mobilization," said the anonymous official.

In turn, The Wall Street Journal reported that NATO is also engaged in "intense discussions" regarding a possible cessation of hostilities in the coming year.

In any case, the statements made by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte on Tuesday in Brussels effectively confirmed the words of anonymous sources from Reuters. The former Prime Minister of the Netherlands, who recently took the helm of the North Atlantic Alliance, stated that the issue of Ukraine's full membership in NATO is currently secondary, although he assured that Kyiv is "on an irreversible path" and is getting closer to the bloc "step by step." According to Mr. Rutte, it is far more important for allies in the current negotiations in Brussels to focus on the urgent needs of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and to "ensure that military assistance reaches Ukraine." "For them (Ukrainian authorities - ed.), it is extremely important that if they ever decide to enter negotiations with the Russians, they do so from a position of strength," emphasized the NATO Secretary General.

At the same time, Mark Rutte noted that he does not believe it is necessary to engage in discussions about a "peace process" right now, instead calling for increased military support for Ukraine. "More military assistance and fewer discussions about what the peace process might look like," he said, adding that coordinating the increase of arms supplies to Kyiv remains his "number one priority." In this regard, Mr. Rutte specifically thanked the USA, Germany, Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, and Norway for their recent announcements regarding additional military aid packages for Ukraine, which is fighting against Putin's Russia.

By the way, the Kremlin also reacted to Ukraine's demand for NATO membership. "Such a decision is, of course, unacceptable for us, as it represents a threatening event," commented Putin's spokesman Peskov on the statement from the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry. According to him, Ukraine's full membership in the Alliance "absolutely contradicts the thesis of indivisible security," and therefore Moscow could not agree to such a scenario. The question of which other country, especially an aggressor, has the right to dictate the foreign policy course of a neighboring state is rhetorical.

However, domestic experts have specific questions and, more accurately, complaints towards the Ukrainian authorities. In particular, political scientist Alexander Kochetkov notes: "I read our plans or victories or peace, none of which are feasible because they are directed outward, towards partners, not towards Ukraine. I listen to how our Supreme Commander boldly sends the enemy away at press conferences instead of quietly preparing and delivering a significant blow. And here comes a factual ultimatum to partners - 'We will not agree to any security guarantees other than NATO membership!' As if someone is offering us that membership. This all stems from powerlessness and a lack of forward-looking ideas. This is the reaction of someone who is cornered and extremely tired. It is a crisis of genre, as they say in show business. Our government has lost touch with the situation it had at the beginning of the full-scale invasion. That is why our president was applauded by parliaments around the world back then. Now, almost everything has changed, except for the approaches of the Ukrainian authorities, where PR prevails over effectiveness, and demands on partners outweigh personal responsibility."

One can partially agree with the expert since the chaotic, and at times contradictory signals coming from the Ukrainian president and echoed by other representatives of the Zelensky government are clear signs, at the very least, of a lack of confidence in their geopolitical positions. However, on the other hand, in a situation where there is so much varied white noise surrounding the potential peace process 24/7, one must play quickly, somewhat aggressively, and even resort to ultimatum elements. In fact, this is precisely what the Foreign Ministry did (clearly at the behest of the Bankova), stating unequivocally that Kyiv will not accept any guarantees other than NATO membership. This statement is especially relevant considering that December 3 marked the 30th anniversary of the signing of the notorious Budapest Memorandum, precisely when NATO diplomats were meeting in Brussels. Given the fate and "weight" of this document, it was certainly not the head of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry who should have been embarrassed at the meeting with colleagues, but someone else.

The absurdity of the situation lies in the fact that the Russian Federation is one of the signatories of the Budapest Memorandum. Meanwhile, Moscow is not only insisting that the Alliance close its doors to Ukraine but is also daily expanding its "wish list." Recently, well-known Russian oligarch Konstantin Malofeev, who is currently under Western sanctions, stated in a comment to the Financial Times that the Kremlin dictator will likely reject (in the original - "send to hell") Trump's peace plan. According to Malofeev, for negotiations to be constructive, the discussion should not be about Ukraine's future but about the future of Europe and the world as a whole. "Moscow will seriously consider a peace agreement only if Trump agrees to discuss other global conflicts, including wars in the Middle East, strengthening the alliance between Russia and China, and recognizing Ukraine as part of the Kremlin's key interests," Malofeev declared, immediately raising the stakes to the heavens.

And he received an immediate response. The future special representative for the war against Ukraine, Kit Kellogg, sent a message to Malofeev: "My reaction is this: he should understand who Donald Trump is because it is a big mistake to underestimate Donald Trump. The world has already done that, and it was a huge mistake... So I would comment like this: better climb back into your box and understand President Trump better because, obviously, you do not understand, and you certainly do not understand the United States."

Against this backdrop, the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry's statement about the non-negotiability of NATO membership appears to be an element that also raises Kyiv's stakes. And there is no doubt that raising them is not just possible but urgently necessary, given the illogical situation where Western players, instead of pressuring the aggressor towards peace, are maximizing pressure on its victim. For instance, recently, former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stated that temporary concessions by Ukraine regarding its territories occupied by Russia could be a way to quickly end the war. Territorial concessions from official Kyiv, the former Secretary General of the Alliance emphasized, would indicate that "we all truly want to end the war." With such rhetoric from allies, as noted in a conversation with Lenta.UA by one of the former leaders of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, one must play the tactical "fool" very quickly and skillfully, without hiding strategic chess in a long box.