NATO Off The Table, Trump’s Plan For Ukraine. What Will Zelenskyy Do Now, Will He Soften His Stand On Territorial Concessions?

As Donald Trump edges closer to assuming office, his approach to the Ukraine-Russia conflict is rapidly taking shape.

According to statements from key advisers, a major component of Trump’s proposed strategy involves removing Ukraine’s NATO membership ambitions from the equation—an idea that may leave Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at a crucial crossroads.

Will Zelenskyy soften his stance on territorial concessions, or will Ukraine continue its staunch resistance, even as it faces the mounting pressure of war fatigue and dwindling resources?

Trump’s Proposed Approach. A Gamble on Diplomacy

Advisers close to Trump, including retired Army Lieutenant-General Keith Kellogg, are proposing a diplomatic strategy not all sweet. The essence – force both Moscow and Kyiv into negotiations with a combination of incentives and threats. Military aid to Ukraine could be halted if Kyiv refuses to negotiate, while further assistance would hinge on Russia’s cooperation.

Trump’s bold claim during his campaign that he could end the war within 24 hours of his inauguration has raised eyebrows. Despite skepticism, his advisers’ statements suggest a roadmap for peace—though one that will likely include contentious compromises.

The key question is- how much leverage does Trump really have over a conflict that has proven to be far more complex than mere political posturing?

Zelenskyy’s Dilemma

Zelenskyy, who once rallied his nation around the prospect of NATO membership and territorial integrity, now faces a harsh reality. Ukraine is incresingly struggling with manpower shortages and territorial losses. While still committed to NATO in principle, Zelenskyy has hinted at the need for “diplomatic solutions” to reclaim occupied territories.

However, softening his stance could alienate a significant portion of the Ukrainian population and military leadership, who view any concessions as a betrayal of national sovereignty. Yet, the longer the war drags on, the more Zelenskyy may be forced to reconsider his options.

Putin’s Calculated Patience. A Waiting Game

While Trump’s advisers speak of negotiations, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin shows little eagerness to engage—at least not on terms favorable to Ukraine or the West.

Putin’s control over Crimea and substantial portions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson has given him a strategic upper hand. Analysts suggest he may prefer to solidify these gains rather than rush into talks.

According to Eugene Rumer of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Putin is “in no hurry.” The Russian leader’s demands include Ukraine dropping its NATO ambitions and conceding the four contested provinces—a price Kyiv has consistently rejected.

The Risk of a Stalemate?

The proposals floated by Trump’s team may end up intensifying the conflict rather than resolving it. If Putin refuses to engage and Ukraine continues to resist, the war could spiral into a prolonged stalemate. Meanwhile, halting military aid to Ukraine as a pressure tactic could weaken Kyiv’s position further, inadvertently emboldening Russia.

Trump’s promise of a swift resolution may sound appealing, but the reality is more nuanced. The balance between peace and surrender is razor-thin, and any diplomatic miscalculation could have lasting repercussions for Ukraine’s sovereignty and regional stability.

NATO Off the Table But What Is The Plan?

Multiple advisers are proposing divergent strategies, each with distinct implications for Ukraine, Russia, and global stability.
With no central working group yet convened, the lack of a cohesive strategy suggests that Trump’s peace plan will be a mosaic of different approaches, heavily reliant on personal diplomacy with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Plan 1: Keith Kellogg’s Freeze-and-Threat Strategy
Retired Army Lieutenant-General Keith Kellogg’s proposal, co-developed with former National Security Council official Fred Fleitz, hinges on freezing the current battle lines and leveraging U.S. military aid as both carrot and stick.

Key Points:
Freeze the Frontlines: Halt the conflict at existing territorial divisions.

Conditional U.S. Aid: Weapons to Ukraine would be contingent on Kyiv’s willingness to negotiate.

NATO Membership On Hold: Ukraine’s bid for NATO membership would be shelved, but U.S. security guarantees could be offered post-accord.

This plan is a balancing act: incentivizing Ukraine to negotiate while pressuring Russia to come to the table. However, critics argue that freezing battle lines could effectively reward Russia’s territorial gains, setting a dangerous precedent.

Plan 2: JD Vance’s Demilitarized Zone
Vice President-elect JD Vance brings a more militarized, defensive proposal. In contrast to Kellogg’s approach, Vance envisions a heavily fortified demilitarized zone along the current front lines.

Key Points:
Demilitarized Zone: Establish a fortified buffer to prevent further Russian incursions.

NATO Membership Denied: Keep Ukraine out of NATO permanently, aligning with Vance’s long-standing opposition to U.S. aid in the conflict.

While Vance’s plan prioritizes security over diplomacy, it risks creating a static, cold-war-like division in Ukraine, reminiscent of the Korean Peninsula’s DMZ. Critics warn this could lead to perpetual tension and undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty.

Plan 3: Richard Grenell’s Autonomous Zones
Richard Grenell, Trump’s former acting intelligence chief and ambassador to Germany, proposes a politically nuanced solution: creating “autonomous zones” in eastern Ukraine.

Key Points:

Autonomous Zones: Eastern regions would be granted a degree of self-governance, though details remain vague.

NATO Membership Rejected: Grenell argues that NATO membership for Ukraine is contrary to U.S. interests.

This proposal aims to placate both Moscow and Kyiv by granting regional autonomy while avoiding full territorial concessions. However, critics argue that it could embolden separatist movements and weaken Ukraine’s central authority.

The Common Thread Is NATO’s Role in Question

Across all proposals, one element remains consistent- NATO membership for Ukraine is off the table. This shared feature may be the linchpin in Trump’s strategy, signaling a broader shift in U.S. foreign policy toward Eastern Europe.

Thus, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy faces an uphill battle. While he has expressed openness to diplomatic solutions, conceding to any of these plans could undermine his domestic support and Ukraine’s long-term security.

If Zelenskyy leans toward negotiations, he risks alienating hardliners. If he resists, he may face dwindling international support, particularly if Trump leverages U.S. aid as a bargaining chip.

Putin’s Strategic Advantage

Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin holds a significant advantage. With control over Crimea and large portions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson, he may prefer to wait, solidify gains, and see how much Trump is willing to concede.

As Eugene Rumer of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace noted, “Putin is in no hurry,” and he may only be tempted to negotiate if Trump offers substantial concessions.

Still, Donald Trump’s proposed peace plans for Ukraine are encountering significant resistance on multiple fronts.

Analysts, European allies, and even key U.S. lawmakers foresee strong pushback from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, whose steadfast commitment to reclaiming all Ukrainian territory remains a cornerstone of his “Victory Plan.”

The Question – What Will Zelenskyy’s Do Now?

Since Russia’s invasion in February 2022, Zelenskyy has been resolute in his refusal to cede any Ukrainian land, including Crimea and the Donbas. However, the realities of an ongoing, grinding conflict have prompted subtle shifts in his rhetoric.

In a recent interview, Zelenskyy maintained Ukraine’s legal stance against recognizing any Russian-occupied territories but left the door open for diplomatic solutions regarding Crimea. “We are ready to bring Crimea back diplomatically,” he stated, a departure from his earlier, uncompromising military focus.

This nuanced shift is echoed by “talk behind closed doors” in Kyiv about potential de facto Russian control over occupied territories, though without formal recognition of Russian sovereignty. Zelenskyy’s evolving stance acknowledges the human cost of retaking Crimea by force:

“We cannot spend dozens of thousands of our people so that they perish for the sake of Crimea coming back.”

Central to Trump’s proposals is shelving Ukraine’s NATO ambitions—an idea Zelenskyy has tied directly to his nation’s survival.
Last week, Ukraine’s foreign minister urged NATO to issue a membership invitation, emphasizing that a protective NATO umbrella over Ukrainian-held territory could serve as a buffer to halt the conflict’s “hot phase.”

European allies, too, remain committed to solidifying Ukraine’s military capabilities, with continued U.S. support under President Joe Biden. This determination weakens Trump’s leverage in pressuring Kyiv to negotiate.
Meanwhile, Zelenskyy’s insistence on NATO protection within internationally recognized borders further complicates any attempt to sideline the alliance from Ukraine’s future security equation.

European Allies’ Reluctance

Europe’s commitment to Ukraine’s defense also poses a challenge. Countries such as Poland, the Baltic states, and even Germany have shown willingness to ramp up aid, recognizing the broader threat Russia poses to European security. If Trump’s peace plan requires dialing back support, he may face diplomatic friction with key allies.

Despite his openness to diplomatic solutions, Zelenskyy walks a precarious path. His public statements reflect an effort to balance the harsh military realities with Ukraine’s unwavering legal stance on sovereignty.

The distinction between legally rejecting Russian claims and practically seeking diplomatic resolutions indicates his struggle to maintain domestic and international support while facing mounting territorial losses.

This nuanced position could give Trump an opening for negotiations. Zelenskyy’s willingness to entertain diplomatic channels for Crimea may be a starting point for broader peace talks, though any agreement that dilutes Ukraine’s territorial claims would be met with fierce opposition at home and abroad.

Still, the evolving discourse around Ukraine’s potential ceasefire with Russia, although fraught with geopolitical complexity, has introduced a glimmer of hope.

However, significant obstacles remain.

• A ceasefire could resemble longstanding, unresolved conflicts such as those between North and South Korea or Cyprus, where the absence of a peace treaty hasn’t hindered development. Still, this approach is likely to face resistance from various quarters.

• While NATO hasn’t formally offered Ukraine a security guarantee, President Volodymyr Zelensky’s openness to this possibility signals a pragmatic shift. His willingness to entertain the idea of a ceasefire without ceding legal claims over Crimea reflects a diplomatic pivot.

• Yet, any such arrangement will likely face pushback from within NATO itself, particularly from member states unwilling to risk broader conflict with Russia by making unprecedented security commitments.

• Moreover, Zelensky’s strategy of maintaining legal claims while deferring military action aligns with past international territorial disputes. However, NATO’s reluctance to offer outright security guarantees—combined with skepticism from member states—could temper optimism over this potential pathway.

Russian Proposals and Western Skepticism

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent stance—demanding a Ukrainian military withdrawal from annexed territories without requiring Kyiv’s legal recognition of Russian sovereignty—has introduced a diplomatic opening.

This mirrors U.S. Vice President-elect J.D. Vance’s controversial suggestion that Ukraine might need to “cede some territory to the Russians.” While this strategy could reduce immediate hostilities, it risks alienating both the Ukrainian leadership and its Western allies.

U.S. lawmakers and European allies have expressed concerns that any agreement requiring territorial concessions might embolden Russian aggression in the long term. Politically, Zelensky risks alienating his base, as many Ukrainians remain steadfast in their desire to reclaim lost territories.

European Discussions on Neutrality

Reports from Berlin suggest that German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is considering a “Finlandization” model for Ukraine—neutrality without full NATO membership.

Additionally, Germany is exploring the creation of a “contact group” with emerging global powers like China, India, and Brazil. While this diplomatic initiative broadens the peace conversation, it may meet resistance from nations that view NATO as a non-negotiable pillar of Ukrainian security.

Despite its potential, the neutrality proposal may not sit well with all European nations, particularly those closer to Russia’s sphere of influence, like Poland and the Baltic states, who remain wary of any compromises that diminish NATO’s role.

Historical Precedent Of Territorial Disputes Without Concessions

Diplomatic strategies involving disputed territories are not new.

Historical examples—from China’s South China Sea claims to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the India-Pakistan dispute over Kashmir—demonstrate that unresolved territorial claims don’t necessarily prevent stability or development.

Yet, Ukraine’s case remains unique due to the scale of destruction and global stakes involved.
While maintaining legal claims over Russian-occupied territories without immediate military recourse offers a potential ceasefire solution, Ukrainian officials would need to carefully manage public sentiment, which remains strongly opposed to any concessions.

The Last Bit. Ceasefire as a First Step, But Not a Solution

The prospect of a ceasefire offers a temporary reprieve but not a long-term resolution. NATO’s cautious stance, Russia’s demands, and Zelensky’s balancing act between diplomacy and national pride all indicate that achieving lasting peace will be a complex and contentious process.

While a ceasefire may lay the groundwork for future peace, it is unlikely to satisfy all parties involved, ensuring that pushback will remain a persistent obstacle.

At the same time, Trump’s peace plans are already facing significant headwinds from multiple quarters.

Zelenskyy’s evolving stance, European allies’ continued military support, and Congressional division on aid make it unlikely that a single, cohesive strategy will emerge easily.

However, Zelenskyy’s subtle rhetorical shifts suggest that while territorial concessions remain off the table legally, diplomatic avenues may become increasingly critical.

Zelenskyy’s path forward is riddled with difficult choices. He could explore negotiations under duress, but at what cost? Will territorial concessions buy peace, or will they sow seeds of future conflict? Much depends on whether he believes Trump’s plan offers a genuine path to stability or merely serves Russian interests.

As Ukraine braces for the next phase of this geopolitical chess match, whether Zelenskyy stands firm or bends under the weight of global diplomacy, the future of Ukraine—and by extension, Eastern Europe—hangs in the balance.