Zelenskyy has not abandoned Ukraine’s NATO accession; Vitkov claims 'major progress' in peace talks.

Welcome to Xiao Kao’s coverage of the Russia-Ukraine war, with insights into humanities and history! This is last night’s (16th) article. We begin today again with peace negotiations: [1] First, details on the peace negotiations: U.S. envoy Vitkov stated that the peace plan achieved 'major progress' during his five-hour meeting with President Zelenskyy in Berlin. He reported that delegates held in-depth discussions on the 20-point peace plan, the economic agenda, and related issues—and that negotiations would resume tomorrow morning. According to Reuters, high-level talks between U.S. and Ukrainian delegations took place on the 14th in Berlin, Germany’s capital, attended by Vitkov, Zelenskyy, and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. Before attending the Berlin talks, Zelenskyy told media that Ukraine, Europe, and the United States were jointly developing a revised 20-point Russia-Ukraine ceasefire plan. He said that freezing hostilities along the current frontline would be the fairest option, and expressed hope that the U.S. would support this approach. However, to date, it remains unclear what exactly has been discussed or whether any genuine progress has actually been made. All we can say for certain is that Ukraine places great importance on peace negotiations and is making every effort to secure a ceasefire—albeit strictly within the framework of safeguarding Ukraine’s national interests. Just before publishing this article, the Wall Street Journal reported that, during the Berlin negotiations, the U.S. was vigorously pushing for a peace agreement by year-end—but refusing to compromise on key terms. According to the report, Washington demanded Ukraine withdraw from parts of the Donbas, while Kyiv insisted on ironclad guarantees should Russia violate the agreement. So far, no breakthrough has been achieved. Polls show that 72% of Ukrainians support freezing the frontline—provided genuine security guarantees are secured—while 75% firmly reject the so-called 'Russian version' of peace, which demands Ukrainian troop withdrawals, disarmament, and surrender. Another poll indicates, however, that 86.7% of Ukrainians believe freezing the frontline would not prevent Russia from launching further attacks. Multiple media outlets have reported that Zelenskyy hinted Ukraine might abandon its long-term goal of joining NATO in exchange for security guarantees from the U.S. and Europe. Yet this claim is inaccurate—and even misleading. I must emphasize unequivocally: Ukraine’s Constitution was amended in 2019 to enshrine NATO membership as a cornerstone of Ukraine’s national strategy. Therefore, Zelenskyy neither intends to, nor possesses the constitutional authority to, renounce Ukraine’s NATO accession goal. I reviewed the original report from Ukrinform, where Zelenskyy actually stated: 'First, Ukraine… wishes to join the NATO alliance. These are genuine security guarantees. Some partners—the U.S. and European countries—do not support this direction. Thus, today’s bilateral security assurances between Ukraine and the U.S., extended also by European partners—as well as Canada, Japan, and others—offering Article 5–style protection, represent our best chance to prevent Russian forces from returning. This, already, is our own compromise.' Clearly, Zelenskyy did not explicitly state he would abandon NATO accession—nor could he, constitutionally. Rather, he indicated Ukraine might consider foregoing immediate accession *if* it receives security guarantees equivalent to NATO’s Article 5. This is fundamentally different from abandoning NATO membership altogether. At most, it implies Ukraine may postpone accession—not relinquish it. I’d also like to remind readers: To this day, many Russian propaganda outlets continue to falsely claim that Russia launched its 'special military operation' because Ukraine sought NATO membership—and that Russia could not accept NATO’s eastward expansion.

Europe will join the Ukraine-U.S.-Russia 'peace' talks; Zelenskyy directly exposes the essence of Russia’s proposed 'European security architecture'.

On November 12, Trump’s two 'star' envoys—Vitkov and Kushner—were extremely busy: They first flew from Abu Dhabi to Moscow, held an emotionally charged two-and-a-half-hour meeting at the Kremlin, then immediately departed for Dublin, Ireland, to brief Zelenskyy on their talks with the Kremlin. At a military airbase outside Dublin, Zelenskyy briefly met with the two envoys and then held a joint press conference later that same night. According to their statements at the press conference, the Abu Dhabi talks indeed yielded certain outcomes—mainly in three areas: First, both sides agreed to exchange prisoners of war, with numbers exceeding 1,000—the largest such exchange since the war began; Second, both sides agreed to hold another round of negotiations—the timing and venue remain to be determined; Third, the Kremlin 'graciously permitted' Europe’s participation in the next round of negotiations. As I noted in yesterday’s article, Russia insists on discussing a 'new European security architecture' while simultaneously excluding Europe from the negotiations—a logical contradiction that renders its position internally inconsistent. Zelenskyy stated that securing direct European participation in future negotiations constitutes a major diplomatic achievement—especially given that European representatives had been excluded from the trilateral talks in Abu Dhabi held on November 10–11. This, however, is merely diplomatic rhetoric. In reality, this third 'outcome' hardly qualifies as a genuine achievement. Russia has deliberately planned to replace the core issue of ending the war with discussions about a European security architecture—and seeks to sow division among European nations during negotiations. Thus, inviting Europe to participate was inevitable. Russia simply resolved its own poorly coordinated contradiction, while simultaneously showcasing its dominance over the narrative to the world. Of course, this is a virtual advantage—one carefully engineered by Trump. That said, regardless of whether these 'achievements' are real or illusory—or whether they carry substantive significance—they cannot genuinely contribute to ending the war. Because, during the talks with Trump’s 'star' envoys, the Kremlin reiterated its long-standing position: First, it asserts 'sovereignty' over Ukraine’s Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia regions; Second, it refuses to establish any so-called 'demilitarized zone' between the two armies. It declared: 'For us, there is only one boundary line—that is the state border. Because then everything becomes crystal clear: We are here, and you are there.' Frankly speaking, regarding this statement alone, I wholeheartedly agree.

US envoys arrive in Dublin for meeting with Zelensky and European representatives

1 day ago

US envoys met Zelensky in Dublin for peace talks, amidst reports of drone attacks damaging a Lukoil refinery and forcing agricultural firm Kernel Holding to suspend oilseed extraction operations.

france24

2026-11-12

US envoys arrive in Dublin for meeting with Zelensky and European representatives

US envoys arrive in Dublin for meeting with Zelensky and European representatives

FAQ