The Price Of Ukraine’s NATO Ambition: Is Donbas Now On The Table?

A possible US proposal linking Ukraine's withdrawal from Donbas to NATO membership has introduced a new dimension to negotiations to end Russia's war. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on Saturday that American negotiators had asked whether Kyiv would leave the eastern region in exchange for joining the military alliance.

It was the first time, according to Zelenskyy, that the possibility of linking territorial withdrawal with NATO membership had been raised during the US-brokered negotiations. He reiterated that Ukraine was not prepared to voluntarily surrender its territory, although he said he could put a comprehensive settlement to a national referendum if it included credible security guarantees, a strong and adequately funded Ukrainian military and reconstruction assistance.

The proposal has not been published as a formal US peace plan, and neither Moscow nor Kyiv has agreed to it. Jared Kushner, who participated in the negotiations alongside US envoy Steve Witkoff, subsequently said both sides had presented maximalist positions but understood that practical compromises would be necessary.

The idea attempts to bridge two opposing demands: Russia wants Ukraine to abandon territory and its NATO ambitions, while Kyiv wants a credible security guarantee against another Russian invasion. But the proposed exchange would require Moscow to accept the very military alliance it has spent years opposing. It would also require Ukraine and NATO's 32 members to agree on the territorial and security arrangements.

What Exactly Has Washington Floated?

The question emerged during the latest round of trilateral negotiations involving Russia, Ukraine and the United States in Abu Dhabi on Tuesday-Wednesday.

According to Zelenskyy, American negotiators asked: what if Ukraine joined NATO; would it then withdraw from Donbas? He described the question as a new development in the discussions, suggesting that NATO membership had returned to the negotiating agenda.

Zelenskyy did not accept the proposed exchange. He said Kyiv would not voluntarily give up its territory but could consider putting a comprehensive peace package before Ukrainian voters. Such an arrangement, he indicated, would need to include security guarantees, the right to maintain a strong military and funding for reconstruction.

Kushner's comments about practical compromises did not confirm that Washington had formally proposed the land-for-membership arrangement. There is also no publicly available document specifying whether the suggested withdrawal would involve a military pullback, a demilitarised zone or recognition of Russian sovereignty over the territory.

The talks produced no major breakthrough, although the parties agreed in principle to a prisoner exchange involving more than 1,000 people, with the final numbers still being discussed. The territorial and security questions remain unresolved.

Why Is Donbas So Important To Both Sides?

Donbas refers to the eastern Ukrainian regions of Donetsk and Luhansk. The area has been central to the conflict since Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the subsequent fighting between Ukrainian forces and Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine.

Russia controls large parts of both regions and claimed to annex them in September 2022, alongside Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, despite not having captured all the territory it claimed. Ukraine continues to hold parts of Donetsk, making the remaining Ukrainian-controlled area a major obstacle in negotiations.

For Moscow, control of the entire Donetsk and Luhansk regions is a longstanding territorial demand. In a June 14, 2024 address, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Ukraine would have to withdraw its troops from the entirety of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia within their administrative boundaries and abandon its NATO ambitions before Russia would agree to a ceasefire and negotiations.

Kyiv rejected those conditions, arguing that they amounted to a demand to surrender sovereign Ukrainian territory.

The distinction between military withdrawal and legal cession is important. If Ukrainian forces withdraw from the remaining parts of Donbas, it would not automatically mean that Kyiv formally recognises Russian sovereignty over the territory. A ceasefire line, a demilitarised area and a legally recognised border are different arrangements.

The United Nations General Assembly has rejected Russia's attempted annexations, reaffirming Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognised borders. Resolution ES-11/4, adopted in October 2022, specifically condemned the attempted annexation of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.

A settlement involving withdrawal would therefore have to address not only who controls the territory but also its legal status and the guarantees protecting the rest of Ukraine.

Why Could Russia Reject The NATO Part Of The Bargain?

The possibility of Ukrainian NATO membership directly conflicts with one of Moscow's central demands in the war.

Russia has repeatedly opposed NATO's eastward expansion and argued that Ukraine's possible accession would threaten its security. Putin's June 2024 conditions explicitly required Kyiv to abandon its NATO ambitions and adopt a neutral, non-aligned status.

His remarks following the Thursday meeting with Witkoff and Kushner did little to indicate a change in that position. Putin reiterated that foreign troops deployed in Ukraine would be unacceptable to Moscow, describing them as legitimate military targets and warning that their presence could restart the conflict.

The distinction between foreign troops and NATO membership is relevant. Accession does not automatically require every NATO country to station forces in Ukraine. However, membership would extend the alliance's collective-defence commitment to the country, fundamentally changing its security relationship with the West.

Moscow has also sought negotiations over a wider European security framework, including restrictions on NATO's military deployments and expansion. Zelenskyy has rejected the idea of resolving the continent's broader security architecture before settling the war, arguing that the immediate priority must be ending the fighting.

The Kremlin has not publicly accepted the reported land-for-NATO arrangement. Its existing demands suggest that obtaining Donbas alone may not be sufficient to secure Russian agreement if Ukraine subsequently joins the alliance.

Can Zelenskyy Put Territorial Withdrawal To A Referendum?

Zelenskyy's suggestion of a national referendum introduces another major obstacle: Ukraine's constitutional and wartime legal framework.

Article 73 of the Ukrainian Constitution states that questions concerning changes to the country's territory must be decided exclusively through an all-Ukrainian referendum. Article 157 also prohibits constitutional amendments aimed at violating Ukraine's territorial integrity and bars constitutional amendments while martial law or a state of emergency is in force.

There are additional restrictions on holding a referendum. Article 19 of Ukraine's Law on the Legal Regime of Martial Law prohibits national and local referendums during martial law. The separate 2021 Law on Democracy Through All-Ukrainian Referendum also sets restrictions on questions that can be submitted to voters.

Ukraine's martial law was extended for another 90 days from October 31, 2026. A referendum therefore cannot currently be held while these restrictions remain in force.

There is also a legal distinction between voting on a comprehensive peace agreement and approving a formal alteration of national territory. The exact legal route would depend on the terms of any settlement, including whether it involved military withdrawal, a change in control or recognition of a new border.

Zelenskyy's statement should consequently be understood as a willingness to seek public backing for a sufficiently comprehensive agreement, not confirmation that a territorial referendum can immediately be organised.

Can Trump Guarantee Ukraine A NATO Seat?

This is perhaps the biggest institutional constraint on the proposal. Trump can influence Washington's position on Ukrainian membership, but he cannot independently admit Ukraine to NATO.

Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty stipulates that existing members may invite another European country to join only by unanimous agreement. With 32 members, this requires every ally to support the invitation.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte acknowledged the problem during an address to the European Parliament on January 26, 2026. He said several member states were blocking Ukrainian membership in the short term and that the necessary unanimity did not exist. He nevertheless reiterated that Ukraine had an irreversible path towards the alliance.

Membership would also carry the implications of Article 5, NATO's collective-defence provision. An armed attack against one member is treated as an attack against all, but each ally determines what action it considers necessary to assist the country under attack. This can include military force, although the treaty does not prescribe an identical military response from every member.

A settlement would therefore need to answer difficult questions. Would NATO's protection begin immediately upon accession? How would Article 5 apply to territory under Russian occupation? What military commitments would members be prepared to make if Russia attacked Ukraine again?

Without agreement on these questions, a promise of membership could remain politically insufficient as a security guarantee for Kyiv.

Why Does Europe Want A Seat At The Negotiating Table?

European participation has become another important element of the negotiations because the settlement would directly affect the continent's security architecture.

On Tuesday, representatives of the European Union, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, Ukraine, the United States and NATO met in Abu Dhabi ahead of the trilateral discussions with Russia. Their joint statement said that any future arrangement must respect Ukraine's sovereignty, territorial integrity and independent decision-making, while providing credible security guarantees.

European leaders also want a direct role in determining post-war security arrangements. On Thursday, European Council President António Costa and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen reiterated that the EU would continue providing financial and military assistance to Ukraine and support its reconstruction and European integration.

Zelenskyy said the US negotiators had agreed that Europe should have a place at the negotiating table in future discussions. According to Reuters, the proposed European representation would include the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy and Poland, alongside EU officials.

Russia, however, has expressed reservations about European involvement. Moscow's objections to foreign military deployments in Ukraine also complicate discussions about the security guarantees European governments could offer after a ceasefire.

For European governments, accepting a settlement that leaves Ukraine vulnerable to renewed aggression would have implications beyond the country's borders. For Moscow, Western military involvement in post-war Ukraine remains a security objection of its own.

What Would It Take For The Proposed Exchange To Work?

The reported arrangement would require several separate agreements rather than a single territorial bargain.

Ukraine would need security guarantees strong enough to justify considering withdrawal from territory it regards as sovereign. That would include clarity on military assistance, NATO membership, reconstruction funding and the status of areas no longer under its control.

Russia would have to accept Ukrainian NATO accession, a major departure from its longstanding opposition. It would also need to clarify whether control of Donbas would satisfy its territorial demands or whether it would continue to seek recognition of its claims over the other three regions.

NATO members, meanwhile, would have to agree unanimously to Ukraine's accession and settle the practical terms of collective defence. Trump cannot provide that guarantee without the consent of the other allies.

The latest negotiations have produced movement on a prisoner exchange and discussions about including Europe more directly, but no agreement on territory or Ukraine's future security alignment. The reported land-for-NATO idea exposes the distance between the positions of the three principal parties.

Washington has raised a possible way to connect Russia's territorial demand with Ukraine's security ambitions. But unless Moscow changes its opposition to NATO membership, Kyiv finds a legally and politically acceptable route for any territorial arrangement, and all NATO allies agree on accession, the suggested exchange remains a negotiating question rather than a workable peace settlement.