U.S. Vice President and 2024 presidential candidate Kamala Harris stated that she will not engage in talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin without the presence of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. This stance signals an alignment with Ukraine’s firm position against negotiating with Moscow, even as the war in Ukraine, which many now consider NATO’s war by extension, continues to falter for the Western-backed alliance. The conflict’s dire trajectory has raised serious questions about NATO’s future and its capacity to maintain unity in the face of mounting challenges.
The ongoing war in Ukraine has evolved into more than just a regional conflict. What began as a Russian invasion to reassert influence over Ukraine has turned into a proxy struggle between Russia and the NATO alliance, with the United States playing a central role in backing Ukraine militarily and economically. However, the conflict has taken a troubling turn for the West. As the war drags on, the prospect of a Ukrainian victory seems increasingly distant, and the costs are mounting, both in terms of lives lost and financial resources expended. Ukraine’s army is suffering heavy losses, and Western arms shipments have struggled to keep pace with Russia’s industrial military capabilities.
Harris’ refusal to negotiate without Zelensky reflects the broader Western policy of supporting Ukraine to the hilt. Yet, this solidarity comes at a steep price. NATO, which has been thrust into the heart of the conflict as Ukraine’s main supporter, is now at a crossroads. The war, which many thought would lead to a swift Russian defeat, has instead brought the future of the transatlantic military alliance into question.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has made his position clear: there will be no negotiations with Moscow under any circumstances. Zelensky’s uncompromising stance stems from the realization that any concessions to Russia would likely spell the end of his leadership and potentially his life. For Zelensky, whose government is under immense pressure both domestically and internationally, any movement toward a peace deal that involves territorial losses would be seen as capitulation to Russian aggression.
Despite the dire situation on the battlefield, Zelensky has refused to entertain any proposals that would involve freezing the conflict or ceding territory to Russia. His recent decision to postpone (officially) a planned “peace summit” — largely because no significant international leaders were willing to attend — highlights the isolation Ukraine faces in terms of peace efforts. European leaders are floating “peace formulas,” but they are not gaining traction. As Zelensky’s military struggles, he has increasingly leaned on more controversial units, such as the Azov Brigade, a unit with a complex history that some accuse of far-right extremist connections. Zelensky’s reliance on this elite force underscores the desperation of the Ukrainian war effort, as more moderate elements of Ukraine’s armed forces continue to suffer devastating casualties.
As the war grinds on with no clear end in sight, some European leaders have floated proposals to freeze the conflict temporarily. The core idea behind these peace initiatives is to accept the current realities on the ground, which would mean allowing Russia to continue occupying parts of Ukraine for the foreseeable future. The long-term goal of this plan would be to bring Ukraine into NATO or offer it robust security guarantees, enabling Ukraine to rebuild its military and economy before confronting Russia again in the future under more favorable conditions.
However, Zelensky’s categorical refusal to consider negotiations with Moscow renders these peace proposals futile. European diplomats understand that any potential peace process would require Ukrainian cooperation. Without it, these initiatives are dead on arrival. This failure to develop a viable path toward peace further exacerbates the challenges facing NATO, which remains committed to supporting Ukraine militarily but is struggling to outline a realistic endgame.
Despite the bleak outlook, Europe and some factions in Washington continue to push for diplomatic solutions. Meanwhile, Western governments keep sending military aid to Ukraine, hoping that the beleaguered Ukrainian forces can hold the line, at least until after the U.S. elections. The timing of the conflict’s outcome is crucial for political reasons in both the U.S. and Europe. A collapse of the Ukrainian war effort before the end of October would likely spell chaos for the Democrats in the United States, who have staked much political capital on supporting Ukraine. It could also destabilize key European governments, including Germany’s ruling coalition and the increasingly fragile French regime.
For Russia, there is little incentive to accept a ceasefire in place. Moscow’s ultimate objectives remain unchanged: demilitarizing Ukraine, ensuring its neutrality, and securing recognition of Russia’s annexation of the Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Crimea regions. These are fundamental demands that neither the current Ukrainian government nor most NATO member states are willing to accept.
From Moscow’s perspective, the longer the war drags on, the more likely it becomes that Ukraine’s government will crumble. Zelensky’s hardline position ensures that Russia will continue pursuing its goal of regime change in Kyiv. A pro-Russian government in Ukraine would be far more likely to agree to Moscow’s terms, including territorial concessions and a neutral status that would prevent Ukraine from joining NATO.
Despite the heavy costs of the war, Russia has the advantage of time. The Kremlin understands that NATO’s ability to continue supporting Ukraine may wane as domestic pressures build in Western countries. Inflation, energy crises, and rising discontent over military spending are making it harder for European governments to justify ongoing support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, the U.S. is heading into a presidential election cycle, where Ukraine policy is likely to become a contentious issue.
The war in Ukraine has exposed profound flaws within NATO, which has spent the past few decades focused on expansion rather than defense. While NATO’s expansion has brought new members into the fold, it has also created vulnerabilities. The alliance now stretches across regions with diverse security concerns and interests, from the Baltics to the Black Sea. As NATO has expanded, its ability to defend these new members has come into question.
Ukraine’s inclusion in NATO’s sphere of influence, though not a formal member, has been one of the most contentious aspects of the alliance’s recent expansion. NATO’s support for Ukraine, primarily driven by U.S. leadership, has stretched the alliance’s resources thin. The war has exposed the reality that NATO lacks the necessary military infrastructure to defend against a major conventional threat, such as Russia. Western arsenals are being rapidly depleted, and it is unclear how long NATO can continue to supply Ukraine with arms while maintaining its own defense posture.
The South Caucasus, particularly Armenia, is another region where NATO’s expansion ambitions are being tested. Russia’s influence in the region remains strong, and any attempt by NATO to extend its influence further south could provoke a sharp Russian response. For now, the South Caucasus remains outside NATO’s direct purview, but the region’s importance is growing as geopolitical tensions continue to escalate.
For the United States, the war in Ukraine presents a difficult dilemma. While the Biden administration and much of the U.S. foreign policy establishment remain committed to supporting NATO and Ukraine, there is growing unease domestically about the financial and strategic costs of the conflict. Hundreds of billions of dollars have already been spent on military aid and economic support for Ukraine, with no end in sight. As the 2024 presidential election approaches, questions about the long-term sustainability of U.S. support for Ukraine are becoming more urgent.
Many in Washington are beginning to ask what the U.S. gains from backing an expansionist NATO policy that has led to a costly and protracted conflict. Critics argue that NATO’s expansion, particularly in Ukraine, has overextended the alliance and drawn the U.S. into a war that offers few tangible benefits. As the war drags on with no prospect of a negotiated settlement, there is a growing risk that the U.S. will have to reassess its commitment to NATO and Europe.