Russian President Vladimir Putin has expressed readiness to negotiate with the United States over the war in Ukraine but insists on Ukraine’s full capitulation as a precondition.
The demand for Ukraine’s capitulation, as reported by the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), highlights a broader strategic objective to undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty and block its integration with Western institutions such as NATO.
While Putin publicly portrays NATO as a threat, his actions and statements reveal an understanding of NATO’s defensive nature. Moscow’s real concern lies in the fact that NATO membership significantly limits its ability to engage in future aggression against member states.
Putin’s Ultimatum
During a meeting of Russia’s Security Council on 20 January, Putin and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov reiterated their willingness to engage with the incoming administration of US President Donald Trump. However, Putin insisted that any peace settlement must address the “root causes” of the conflict, which he framed as Ukraine’s compliance with sweeping Russian demands.
These demands include:
- Ukraine adopting a permanent neutral status, formally abandoning its NATO membership ambitions.
- A drastic reduction in Ukraine’s military capabilities.
- Recognition of Crimea and four annexed Ukrainian regions—Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson—as Russian territory.
- The removal of Ukraine’s current government, which Moscow deems illegitimate.
Putin’s conditions reflect a continuation of pre-war demands from late 2021, which were rejected by Ukraine and its Western allies as an infringement on Ukraine’s sovereignty.
NATO as a Defensive Alliance
While Putin frequently portrays NATO as an existential threat to Russia, his actions suggest that he perfectly understands the alliance’s defensive nature. NATO’s charter obliges member states to come to the defence of any ally under attack, making it a deterrent rather than an aggressor. However, this very characteristic of NATO is what limits Moscow’s ability to exert military pressure on its neighbours.
For Russia, the concern is not NATO’s immediate threat to its borders but the alliance’s role in preventing future Russian aggression. Membership guarantees would shield countries like Ukraine from coercion and military intervention, effectively closing off opportunities for Moscow to expand its influence.
This explains the Kremlin’s vehement opposition to NATO’s expansion into former Soviet territories such as Ukraine while reacting more moderately to countries like Finland and Sweden joining the alliance.
The Contradiction of Russia’s NATO Narrative
Russia’s muted reaction to Finland and Sweden joining NATO in 2023 and 2024, respectively, contrasts sharply with its hostility towards Ukraine’s NATO aspirations. Despite Finland sharing a 1,340-kilometre border with Russia, Moscow limited its response to vague warnings of “countermeasures” and troop deployments. Putin even once characterised Finland’s NATO accession as its “sovereign right.”
This discrepancy reveals that Russia’s aggression towards Ukraine is not driven by genuine security concerns over NATO but by a desire to maintain influence over its former Soviet neighbours. Ukraine’s membership in NATO would eliminate the Kremlin’s leverage and make any future aggression against Ukraine far more costly and less feasible.
Russia’s Broader Ambitions
Since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Russia has expanded its territorial and political demands. Initially, Moscow sought recognition of Crimea as Russian territory and the independence of the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk “People’s Republics.” Following sham referendums in four occupied Ukrainian regions in September 2022, Russia annexed these territories and now demands Kyiv recognise them as part of Russia.
These actions reflect Moscow’s broader goal of reasserting dominance over its neighbours and rebuilding a sphere of influence reminiscent of the Soviet Union. NATO membership in these regions poses a direct challenge to this objective by creating security guarantees that Russia cannot easily undermine.
Broader Implications
Putin’s insistence on Ukraine’s capitulation highlights the Kremlin’s intent to undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty and prevent its integration into Western defence structures. While Putin publicly frames NATO as a threat to Russian security, the reality is that NATO’s defensive posture limits Russia’s ability to project power and exert control over its neighbours.
The international community must recognise that Russia’s opposition to NATO expansion is not about defence but about preserving its capacity for future aggression. By exposing this narrative, Western allies can continue to counter Moscow’s attempts to destabilise the rules-based international order.
Putin’s demands for Ukraine’s capitulation and his narrative of NATO as a threat serve to mask Russia’s broader imperial ambitions. The Kremlin’s true concern lies in NATO’s ability to curtail Russian aggression, particularly in former Soviet states. As the war continues, the international community must stand firm in supporting Ukraine’s sovereignty and exposing the contradictions in Moscow’s claims.
The outcome of the conflict will not only shape Ukraine’s future but also define the role of NATO and the principles of collective security in deterring aggression in the 21st century.
Image: Kremlin.ru
