Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says U.S. negotiators raised the possibility of Ukraine withdrawing from the parts of Donbas it still controls in exchange for NATO membership during recent peace talks in Abu Dhabi. He described the question as a new development in the negotiations, but stressed that Kyiv would not agree to surrender territory and that any comprehensive settlement would require security guarantees, a strong Ukrainian military and funding for reconstruction.

Official portrait of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
Official portrait of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Photo: President of Ukraine, via Wikimedia Commons, licensed under CC BY 4.0.

What Zelensky Says Was Raised In Abu Dhabi

In remarks made public on Saturday, November 14, Zelenskyy said American representatives asked whether Ukraine might withdraw from Donbas if it were offered membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Reuters reported that the question was raised during the latest round of U.S.-brokered discussions involving Ukraine and Russia in the United Arab Emirates.

The Ukrainian president said the linkage between NATO membership and territorial withdrawal had not previously been presented to him in that form. He said Ukraine would not give up territory, but added that he could put a comprehensive agreement to a national referendum if Washington confirmed a package that included clear security guarantees, the right to maintain a strong and adequately funded army, and resources for rebuilding the country.

That condition is significant. Zelenskyy said he did not have the authority to make such a decision alone. His comments therefore describe a possible negotiating question, not an accepted proposal or an agreement reached by the parties. The White House and NATO had not publicly confirmed the suggested exchange in the reports reviewed for this article.

Cityscape of Donetsk in eastern Ukraine, photographed before the full-scale invasion.
Archive view of Donetsk, eastern Ukraine. Photo: Andrey Butko, via Wikimedia Commons, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0. This photograph predates the current war.

Why Donbas Is Central To The Negotiations

Donbas refers principally to the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in eastern Ukraine. The area has been at the centre of the conflict since 2014, when Russia-backed separatists took control of parts of the region, and it became a major target of Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022.

Russia now occupies much of Donbas, but Ukrainian forces still hold strategically important territory, including fortified towns and defensive positions that form part of the country’s eastern line. Those positions are important not only for military reasons but also because they protect population centres and limit the ability of Russian forces to advance further west.

For Kyiv, withdrawing from the remaining areas would be a major territorial and security concession. It could remove some of Ukraine’s strongest defensive positions and leave questions about the future status of residents, property and local institutions. Ukraine has also repeatedly rejected the idea of legally recognising territory occupied by Russia as Russian sovereign land.

Russia, meanwhile, has continued to demand control over territory it claims to have annexed and has opposed Ukraine’s membership of NATO. President Vladimir Putin reiterated in his November 12 meeting with U.S. envoys that foreign troops in Ukraine would be unacceptable to Moscow, according to reporting by Channel News Asia and other outlets.

View of Kramatorsk in Donetsk Oblast, eastern Ukraine, in May 2012.
Archive photograph of Kramatorsk, Donetsk Oblast, taken May 27, 2012. Photo: Антон Карпузиков, via Wikimedia Commons, licensed under CC BY 3.0.

Security Guarantees Remain The Key Question

Zelenskyy’s response indicates that NATO membership alone would not be enough to secure Ukrainian agreement to any territorial arrangement. He said the package would have to include guarantees that could protect Ukraine against another Russian attack, as well as the ability to maintain a capable military and finance reconstruction.

Ukraine has long argued that any settlement must prevent a repeat of the invasion. Kyiv has sought security arrangements that would be binding and backed by military and financial support from Western partners. The debate is complicated by the fact that NATO membership requires agreement among all allies, while Russia has consistently opposed Ukraine joining the alliance.

In his remarks, Zelenskyy also rejected Moscow’s proposal to settle the wider European security framework before resolving the war in Ukraine. He argued that negotiations should first address the end of the fighting and the security of Ukraine, rather than begin with a broad redesign of Europe’s military and political order.

That position reflects a wider concern among European governments. Russia has sought restrictions on NATO’s military presence in countries that joined the alliance after 1997, as well as limits on Ukraine’s armed forces and Western military assistance. The Washington Post reported that Russian negotiating demands include a broad rollback of NATO deployments and restrictions on military activity across parts of Eastern Europe. Those are Moscow’s demands, not terms that have been publicly accepted by Washington or Kyiv.

Europe Is Expected To Have A Larger Role In Future Talks

The latest round of talks in Abu Dhabi did not produce a major breakthrough on territory. However, Reuters reported that the parties reached an agreement in principle on a prisoner exchange involving more than 1,000 people. Zelenskyy also said U.S. representatives had agreed to discuss an energy ceasefire with Putin, although he reported no progress on that issue.

Another important development was the decision to bring European representatives into future discussions. European leaders agreed that Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and European Union officials should represent the continent in subsequent talks. U.S. envoy Jared Kushner said Washington was working to facilitate direct engagement between Russia and European partners while preparing the agenda for another round of trilateral discussions.

European participation is important because any agreement affecting NATO, regional security or Ukraine’s future would have consequences beyond the three countries directly involved in the Abu Dhabi format. European governments have also provided substantial military and financial support to Kyiv and would be expected to help implement any long-term security guarantees.

What Happens Next

The immediate question is whether Washington will formally confirm the idea Zelenskyy described and provide details of the security package that might accompany it. Without such confirmation, the reported exchange remains a negotiating question relayed by the Ukrainian president rather than an agreed U.S. proposal.

Further talks are expected to include European representatives. The parties will need to address territory, NATO membership, security guarantees, the size and future role of Ukraine’s military, reconstruction financing and the sequence of any ceasefire or peace agreement. Russia’s stated opposition to Ukraine joining NATO and Kyiv’s refusal to surrender territory remain major obstacles.

For Ukraine, any decision involving territorial concessions would carry constitutional, political and human consequences. Zelenskyy’s reference to a possible referendum signals that he would seek public approval for a comprehensive deal rather than decide the issue unilaterally. It does not mean a referendum has been called or that Ukraine has agreed to withdraw from Donbas.

HeadlinesXtra Analysis

The reported question exposes the central tension in the current peace effort: Ukraine wants a credible path to security, while Russia continues to demand territorial and strategic concessions that Kyiv views as unacceptable. Linking NATO membership to a withdrawal from Donbas would not automatically resolve that tension. It could instead create a new dispute over whether the guarantees offered would be strong enough to protect Ukraine after giving up some of its most defensible positions.

The absence of public confirmation from Washington is especially important. A question raised in negotiations is not the same as a formal proposal, and a proposal is not the same as a policy accepted by NATO allies. Any serious assessment must distinguish Zelenskyy’s account of the discussion from the positions that the U.S. government, NATO and Russia have formally stated.

Europe’s role will also matter. A settlement that changes NATO’s posture or requires long-term guarantees for Ukraine cannot be treated as a bilateral arrangement between Washington and Moscow. European governments would have to be involved in the security architecture, financing and implementation. Their participation may make negotiations more complex, but it is necessary if any agreement is to be durable.

The decisive test will be whether negotiators can produce guarantees that are enforceable, adequately funded and acceptable to the Ukrainian public. Without those elements, the idea of exchanging territory for membership or similar assurances is unlikely to close the gap between Kyiv’s security demands and Moscow’s territorial objectives.

Sources And Further Reading