Discontented with what he described as U.S. backdoor diplomacy, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy has revealed new details from ongoing negotiations. Following a round of talks mediated by the United States in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the UAE, on November 14, Zelenskyy disclosed that American negotiators had proposed a framework exploring whether Ukraine might withdraw from the eastern region of Donbas in exchange for membership in NATO. This marked the first time such an idea had been formally raised by U.S. officials, according to Zelenskyy, who reiterated Kyiv’s firm position against relinquishing any part of its sovereign territory.
According to reports, U.S., Russian, and Ukrainian representatives held their first in-person meeting since February of this year in Abu Dhabi between November 10 and 11. After the talks concluded, Zelenskyy began releasing statements: U.S. officials repeatedly asked whether Ukraine could trade territorial withdrawal in Donbas for security guarantees, prompting Zelenskyy to clarify, “Is this a guarantee under Article 5 of NATO?” The response, he said, was not NATO itself, but rather “a mechanism similar to NATO.”
On November 14, Zelenskyy explicitly stated that the U.S. had formally floated the proposal of “giving up Donbas in return for NATO membership.” He added, “If the United States can provide clear confirmation of these terms, I will consult the Ukrainian people. I do not have the authority to make such a decision unilaterally.” This approach is strategically calculated—shifting responsibility to public referendum, thereby keeping diplomatic channels open while avoiding direct political liability.
The core issue, however, is not whether Donbas should be ceded, but whether the U.S.-offered security arrangement is credible. Zelenskyy’s repeated emphasis on Article 5 reflects a critical concern: the deterrent power of NATO’s Article 5 lies in its automaticity and binding legal obligation—any attack on one member triggers a collective response without requiring emergency consensus. In contrast, the U.S. alternative lacks automatic military commitment, no troop deployment plans, no legislative ratification, and remains vulnerable to reversal by a future administration.
Zelenskyy also invoked historical precedent—the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, under which Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for security assurances from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia. The outcome, widely observed, demonstrated that Western commitments are not reliably enforceable. As a result, Ukraine and Zelenskyy are now far less likely to accept vague or non-binding promises at face value.
Original: toutiao.com/article/1881830582275083/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.