President Volodymyr Zelensky’s recent call for NATO protection over territories still under Kyiv’s control has sparked a charged debate in global policy circles. By proposing this potential lifeline, Zelensky attempts to navigate the twin imperatives of ensuring Ukraine’s security while grappling with an ongoing war. Yet, his overture raises profound questions about the future of NATO, Ukraine’s territorial integrity, and the broader stability of Eastern Europe.

This proposal departs from Ukraine’s steadfast refusal to entertain compromises on its territorial sovereignty. For months, Kyiv has remained resolute in its demand for the restoration of its internationally recognized borders, including Crimea and the Donbas region. However, Zelensky’s suggestion of NATO-backed protection for government-held territories signals an attempt to straddle pragmatism and principle. Kyiv hopes to achieve a degree of security by potentially solidifying a defensive perimeter and perhaps laying the groundwork for future diplomacy.

This pragmatism, however, carries risks. By limiting NATO membership to territories currently under Ukrainian control, Zelensky’s plan could be seen as tacit acceptance of Russian occupation elsewhere—such a move risks eroding global norms on sovereignty and territorial integrity. Worse still, it might create an inadvertent incentive for territorial aggression, sending a troubling message to other revisionist powers.

The path to Ukraine’s NATO membership is fraught with obstacles—not least of which are the alliance’s internal divisions and the specter of escalating tensions with Russia. The prospect of fast-tracking Ukraine’s membership has always been contentious for NATO. Extending Article 5 protections to Ukraine could compel member states to confront Russia directly—a scenario many in NATO are desperate to avoid.

Even within the alliance, member states diverge sharply on the issue. Nations like Poland and the Baltic states, acutely aware of the Russian threat, champion Ukraine’s cause. By contrast, Germany and France adopt a more cautious stance, wary of antagonizing Moscow and mindful of broader geopolitical consequences. This divide underscores the difficulty NATO faces in balancing collective defense with the risk of a broader war.

Adding to the complexity is Zelensky’s insistence that NATO membership encompasses all internationally recognized Ukrainian territories. For Russia, which has effectively annexed Crimea and parts of Donetsk and Luhansk, such a move would be intolerable—a red line Moscow is unlikely to ignore. NATO’s reluctance to take decisive action could, paradoxically, deepen the rift between Ukraine and its Western allies, further emboldening Russia. Compounding these uncertainties is the shifting landscape of U.S. policy.

President-elect Donald Trump, known for his skepticism of NATO and warmer overtures toward Russia, could signal a dramatic pivot in U.S. foreign policy once he gets the keys to the White House. This would undoubtedly weaken NATO’s unity and undermine Ukraine’s already tenuous security. American support has been pivotal, from military aid to economic relief, but its future hinges precariously on political winds in Washington. Any wavering in U.S. resolve could destabilize Ukraine and NATO’s collective credibility.

One of the most troubling outcomes of Zelensky’s plan is the possibility of creating a “frozen conflict” akin to those in Georgia’s South Ossetia and Abkhazia or Moldova’s Transnistria. If NATO extends protection only to government-held regions, it risks solidifying the status quo—leaving Russian-backed enclaves as unresolved flashpoints.

Such a scenario would lock Ukraine into perpetual instability, with contested territories serving as festering wounds rather than opportunities for reconciliation. Furthermore, the influence of non-state actors complicates any resolution. Russian-backed separatists and paramilitary groups wield significant power in occupied areas and are unlikely to acquiesce to NATO’s involvement. Their persistence could ensure that Ukraine remains mired in conflict, undermining NATO’s objectives and Kyiv’s aspirations for peace.

Beyond NATO, the European Union will play a decisive role in shaping Ukraine’s post-war trajectory. While NATO may provide military assurances, the EU’s economic and political support will be indispensable for reconstruction and long-term stability. However, if NATO and the EU fail to coordinate effectively, their efforts could undercut each other, leaving Ukraine in a fragmented and weakened state.

Moscow’s response to Zelensky’s proposal will likely hinge on internal dynamics as much as external pressures. Domestically, Russia faces growing economic challenges and public dissent over the war. Should these pressures intensify, the Kremlin might reconsider its aggressive posture. Yet, an equally plausible scenario sees Moscow doubling down, using NATO’s involvement as justification for further escalation.

Legal and normative questions further complicate the issue. NATO’s potential role in contested territories challenges international frameworks like the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act and the Budapest Memorandum of 1994. The latter, which guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity in exchange for denuclearization, is a stark reminder of the fragility of international commitments.

Zelensky’s NATO gambit represents both a bold gamble and a sobering reflection of Ukraine’s plight. While it may offer a temporary respite from war, it risks entrenching divisions and setting dangerous precedents for global security. The international community faces a stark choice: prioritize short-term de-escalation or uphold the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity.

To navigate this impasse, a comprehensive strategy is essential—one that combines NATO’s military support with robust diplomatic initiatives. Only by addressing the root causes of the conflict can Ukraine hope to secure a lasting peace. As the world watches, the stakes for Ukraine, Europe, and the international order have never been higher.