NATO membership for renunciation of territory?: The smokescreen from Donbass

It's mid-November, the time of the fog candles. The latest smokescreen was a report in the Financial Times that US negotiators Witkoff and Kushner asked Ukrainian President Zelensky whether he would vacate the Ukrainian-controlled parts of Donbass if in return Ukraine became a NATO member. Zelensky said he responded: "If the American side, together with other NATO partners, confirms this to us precisely, I will ask our Ukrainian society what it thinks: do we accept it or not?"

This report, “USA launches NATO membership in Donbass withdrawal agreement,” says Zelenskyj,” gave rise to headlines in Germany such as “Trump offers NATO membership in exchange for territory renunciation.” Almost everything about it was wrong. For one thing, it didn't come from Trump, and with Trump that's crucial. Secondly, it was not an offer, but a question about a possible answer in the event of an offer. Thirdly, it was not about giving up territory as such, which is still out of the question for Zelensky. This is how journalism is used to make politics, in the spirit of the thesis that the Ukraine war is not over yet simply because Ukraine has not yet made the necessary concessions.

Of course: If Ukraine disappears into thin air, the war will be over. Below this threshold, however, Russia will continue its war. Putin wants to defeat Ukraine militarily and the West diplomatically; he demands a free hand on the war front and the de facto reversal of NATO's eastern expansion at the negotiating table. For this reason alone, “Donbass against NATO” is unrealistic. Such smokescreens are simply intended to suggest that there are alternatives to military support for Ukraine.

This support is particularly important now. Russia is losing ground in Donbass. To compensate, it is intensifying its rocket attacks on the civilian population. Putin can't conquer Ukraine, so he wants to make it uninhabitable. Anyone who accepts this can save themselves on diplomacy.