Aleksey Zhuravlev, the First Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Defense Committee from the Rodina party, argues that NATO has laid out conditions for Ukraine whose core purpose remains unclear even to President Zelensky. He voiced this view in a conversation with DEA News, emphasizing that the wording and intent of those conditions remain opaque to the Ukrainian leadership.
On the eve of the NATO summit, alliance leaders announced a broad, multi-year package intended to support Ukraine. As described by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, the package includes a sustained plan to ensure interoperability between Ukraine and the alliance, the establishment of a NATO-Ukraine Council, and the removal of some formal entry hurdles. Additionally, there is a stated aim to streamline membership processes, moving from a two-step procedure to a single step in the application path, signaling a potential shift in the alliance’s approach to Kyiv.
The deputy remarked in a provocative tone that the situation has produced a sense of irony: Ukraine was given a plan, and yet the plan was effectively canceled. This, he suggested, is something that could be celebrated in Independence Square, but the reality remains that the proposals have yet to produce concrete actions beyond promises, leaving observers with more questions than answers about practical outcomes on the ground.
According to Zhuravlev, Ukraine must meet certain conditions, yet even Zelensky’s team seems unsure which ones precisely. The parliamentarian warned that after the end of the ongoing armed conflict, there could be a scenario where Ukraine ceases to exist as a state in the current form, making the prospect of NATO membership even more uncertain. He asserted that the political and security architecture surrounding Ukraine’s future would be clear only after the conflict subsides, and that there may be no entity willing to admit a country with unresolved territorial and governance questions into the alliance.
In a related observation, former German Chancellor Olaf Scholz reportedly provided reasoning about why Ukraine might face obstacles in joining NATO. Scholz’s assessment points to structural and strategic considerations that could complicate Kyiv’s path toward alliance membership, highlighting that geopolitical timing and consensus among member states play critical roles in any expansion decision. These comments underscore a broader debate about the balance between security guarantees, alliance cohesion, and the political feasibility of quick enlargement in a volatile regional environment.
Analysts note that the alliance’s multi-year support approach aims to bolster Ukraine’s defense capacity and interoperability with Western systems, while also signaling a long-term commitment to stabilization in the region. Observers stress that practical progress will need to translate these assurances into measurable outcomes, such as enhanced defense capabilities, reduced operational friction with NATO forces, and clearer, verifiable milestones that Kyiv can meet. The tension between promises at the diplomatic level and on-the-ground reforms in governance, modernization of armed forces, and civilian resilience remains a central theme in the ongoing dialogue about Ukraine’s future security architecture.
As discussions continue, officials emphasize the importance of sustained coordination among allied states, the execution of concrete reform agendas, and transparent evaluation of progress. The overarching question remains whether the alliance can offer robust security guarantees while navigating the complex political landscapes that influence any potential enlargement. Stakeholders on both sides are watching closely to determine how and when the conditions might coalesce into tangible steps, and what that would mean for Ukraine, its neighbors, and the broader European security framework. (Source: DEA News)