Jens Stoltenberg, the former NATO secretary-general, recently expressed in an interview that Ukraine may need to consider sacrificing some of its territories to achieve peace with Russia. This commentary comes in light of the ongoing conflict, which has significantly strained Ukraine’s resources and territorial integrity. As Stoltenberg concluded his decade-long role leading NATO on October 1, he emphasized that the restoration of Ukraine’s 1991 borders should not be an absolute prerequisite for a peace agreement. His remarks suggest that a shift might be necessary for Ukraine to gain security guarantees and facilitate a dialogue that could lead to an end to hostilities.
Stoltenberg noted that the geopolitical landscape might pivot following the upcoming U.S. presidential election in November. He implied that this could create new opportunities for both military and diplomatic maneuvers that might encourage Ukraine and Russia to find common ground. He stressed the importance of establishing conducive conditions for negotiations, which would allow Ukraine to engage with Russia in a manner that preserves its status as an independent nation. During the interview, Stoltenberg offered historical context, comparing Ukraine’s potential situation to Finland’s resolution of its conflict with the Soviet Union in the late 1930s, which saw Finland ceding a portion of its territory in exchange for a more secure border.
The comparison to the Soviet-Finnish War brings to light the complex nature of territorial negotiations in times of conflict. Stoltenberg recalled how Finland, despite suffering significant losses, ultimately emerged with a secure border even after conceding 10% of its territory through the March 1940 peace treaty. This compromise led to Finland maintaining its independence and sovereignty, highlighting that territorial concessions do not inherently negate a nation’s identity or autonomy. He speculated that for Ukraine, a similar approach might necessitate recognizing some territorial realities resulting from the current war to secure its broader strategic goals.
Furthermore, Stoltenberg argued that security guarantees from NATO could still be viable for Ukraine, even if post-conflict territorial boundaries differ from currently recognized borders. He drew a parallel between Ukraine’s potential situation and the U.S. defense agreement with Japan, which remains despite Tokyo’s claims over contested territories with Russia. According to Stoltenberg, the key lies in establishing a clear line that delineates where NATO’s Article 5—collective defense—is invoked, requiring Ukraine to maintain control over the territory up to that defined border to ensure its backing from the alliance.
Despite these perspectives, tensions remain high, notably concerning Russia’s insistence on retaining control over Crimea and other regions it occupies in Ukraine—territories that Kyiv firmly views as its own. Stoltenberg’s analysis of the current military situation indicates that Ukraine’s chances of imposing its own peace terms seem increasingly bleak, especially following the 2023 counteroffensive’s lack of success and Russia’s incremental gains in the Donbass region. The recent captures of fortified towns, including Avdeevka and Ugledar, further complicate Ukraine’s position and diminish optimism for a swift resolution through military means.
In conclusion, as the conflict drags on, the notion of territorial sacrifices may emerge as a pragmatic consideration for Ukraine in pursuit of peace. Stoltenberg’s insights reflect a broader understanding that while the restoration of pre-war borders is an aspirational goal, the complex realities of warfare and diplomacy often demand a nuanced approach. His emphasis on the historical precedent set by Finland underscores the potential for solutions that allow a nation to retain its independence and sovereignty, even amid territorial compromises. As the international community watches closely, the upcoming U.S. elections could indeed serve as a pivotal moment, either reigniting discussions for Ukraine’s security guarantees or prolonging the ongoing conflict.