俄烏戰爭進入長期消耗後，一個極具指標性的政治轉折時刻。烏克蘭總統澤連斯基在柏林會晤美國特使前夕公開表態，指出烏克蘭已放棄「加入北約」這一長期被視為國家安全終極保障的戰略目標，轉而以此作為換取西方安全承諾、推動戰爭結束的談判籌碼。這不僅代表烏克蘭在外交與安全路線上的重大讓步，也顯示戰場與國際政治現實正在深刻重塑基輔當局的選項空間。

自俄烏衝突全面爆發以來，加入北約一直被烏克蘭視為防止俄羅斯再度侵略的核心目標，同時也是莫斯科反覆強調的「紅線」。如今澤連斯基公開承認願意放棄此一目標，等同於承認在當前國際格局下，北約正式接納烏克蘭的政治與軍事成本，已超出西方國家可承受範圍，也反映烏克蘭在長期戰爭、人力與經濟壓力下，必須尋求一條現實可行的停火與安全路徑。

澤連斯基在發言中多次強調，「和平計畫」不可能令所有人滿意，其中必然包含妥協，這是一種相當罕見的直白表述。這顯示烏克蘭政府已開始為國內與國際輿論「預期管理」，提前釋放訊號，為可能引發爭議的讓步鋪墊政治空間。然而，他同時強調妥協必須建立在「公平」的基礎之上，尤其是對烏克蘭而言，這反映基輔仍試圖劃出底線，避免和平方案被解讀為單方面的屈服或被迫接受俄方主導的結果。

在澤連斯基的論述中，安全保障成為取代北約會員資格的核心關鍵。他特別指出，和平計畫不能只是紙上談兵，而必須在簽署後，實質確保俄羅斯無法再次對烏克蘭人民發動新的軍事行動。這意味著烏克蘭所要求的，不僅是停火或戰線凍結，而是某種具約束力、可執行的安全機制，例如多國承諾、軍事援助的長期制度化，甚至是類似「準同盟」的防衛安排。這也是為何烏克蘭雖然放棄北約目標，卻並未放棄對集體安全的訴求。

值得注意的是，澤連斯基明確承認，目前烏克蘭與俄羅斯之間並不存在直接對話管道，美國在烏美雙邊溝通中，實際扮演「轉達者」的角色，某種程度上代表俄方傳遞訊號、要求與談判意向。這一說法相當敏感，卻也揭示了現實的外交結構：在戰爭持續、雙方高度不信任的情況下，華盛頓成為實質上的中介者，而非僅僅是支持者。這也凸顯烏克蘭在談判主導權上的有限空間，其重大戰略選擇仍深受美國立場影響。

德國方面的動向，則顯示歐洲試圖重新提升自身在和平進程中的角色。德國總理默茨表示，已與多國歐洲領導人共同向特朗普提出一份俄烏「和平計畫」建議，並邀請美方參與後續會議。這反映歐洲國家對於戰爭長期化的焦慮，也顯示他們希望在美國主導之外，對最終方案擁有更大的話語權，避免歐洲安全架構完全由美俄博弈所決定。

白宮隨後證實，美國中東問題特使威特科夫將在柏林會晤澤連斯基及多位歐洲領導人，推動年內達成美方提出的和平計畫。這一安排本身就具有象徵意義：一方面顯示美國正在加速為衝突設定「時間表」，另一方面也意味烏克蘭未來的安全安排，可能會被納入更廣泛的全球戰略考量，而不再只是歐洲區域問題。

整體而言，這起事件標誌著俄烏戰爭從「以勝負為目標的全面對抗」，逐步轉向「以可接受結局為導向的政治談判」。烏克蘭放棄加入北約的表態，既是現實壓力下的戰略調整，也是一場高度風險的政治賭注。若安全保障不足，這樣的讓步可能被視為犧牲長遠安全；但若成功換得具實效的國際承諾，則可能成為結束戰爭、重塑歐洲安全秩序的重要轉折點。

A highly significant political turning point as the Russia–Ukraine war enters a prolonged phase of attrition. On the eve of his meeting in Berlin with a U.S. envoy, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stated that Ukraine is prepared to abandon its long-standing goal of joining NATO in exchange for Western security guarantees, presenting this as a compromise aimed at ending the conflict. This declaration represents a major shift in Ukraine’s strategic stance and underscores how battlefield realities and international political constraints are reshaping Kyiv’s available options.

Since the full-scale outbreak of the war, NATO membership has been viewed by Ukraine as the ultimate guarantee against renewed Russian aggression, while at the same time being repeatedly defined by Moscow as a “red line.” Zelensky’s public acknowledgment that Ukraine is willing to relinquish this objective suggests a recognition that, under current circumstances, the political and military costs of NATO’s formal admission of Ukraine exceed what Western countries are willing to bear. It also reflects the immense pressure Ukraine faces after years of war, including manpower losses and economic strain, forcing the government to seek a more realistic pathway toward a ceasefire and long-term security.

In his remarks, Zelensky repeatedly stressed that any “peace plan” would inevitably involve compromises and could not satisfy everyone, a notably candid admission. This signals that the Ukrainian leadership is preparing both domestic and international audiences for potentially controversial concessions, creating political space for difficult decisions ahead. At the same time, he emphasized that any compromise must be grounded in fairness, especially from Ukraine’s perspective, indicating Kyiv’s effort to draw clear red lines and avoid a settlement that could be perceived as unilateral capitulation or as being dictated by Russian terms.

Security guarantees have emerged as the central pillar intended to replace NATO membership. Zelensky made it clear that a peace plan must be more than symbolic; it must be effective in practice and ensure that, once signed, Russia would be unable to launch new military attacks against the Ukrainian people. This implies that Ukraine is not merely seeking a ceasefire or a frozen conflict, but rather a binding and enforceable security arrangement. Such guarantees could include long-term, institutionalized military assistance from Western countries, multilateral commitments, or mechanisms resembling a de facto alliance, even if formal NATO membership is set aside.

Zelensky also explicitly acknowledged that there are currently no direct communication channels between Ukraine and Russia. Instead, the United States plays a special intermediary role in U.S.–Ukraine bilateral talks, effectively relaying Russian signals, demands, negotiating steps, and core intentions to Kyiv. This admission is particularly sensitive, as it reveals the reality of the diplomatic structure surrounding the conflict. With mutual distrust at extreme levels, Washington has become not only Ukraine’s principal supporter but also a de facto broker, highlighting Ukraine’s limited autonomy in shaping negotiations and the extent to which its strategic decisions are influenced by U.S. positions.

Developments on the German side further illustrate Europe’s attempt to reassert its role in the peace process. German Chancellor Merz stated that he and several European leaders have jointly submitted a proposal on a Russia–Ukraine peace plan to Donald Trump and invited the United States to participate in related meetings. This reflects growing European concern over the prolonged war and a desire to have greater influence over the eventual settlement, rather than allowing Europe’s future security architecture to be determined solely through U.S.–Russian bargaining.

The White House subsequently confirmed that U.S. Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff will meet Zelensky and multiple European leaders in Berlin this weekend, with the aim of advancing a U.S.-proposed peace plan and achieving progress within the year. The choice of a Middle East envoy and the emphasis on a timeline underscore Washington’s intention to accelerate the process and suggest that Ukraine’s future security arrangements may be integrated into broader global strategic considerations, rather than treated purely as a regional European issue.

Taken as a whole, this development marks a shift in the Russia–Ukraine war from a conflict driven primarily by battlefield victory toward one increasingly shaped by political negotiation and the search for an acceptable end state. Ukraine’s willingness to abandon NATO membership is both a pragmatic adjustment to harsh realities and a high-stakes political gamble. If the resulting security guarantees prove insufficient, the move could be seen as sacrificing long-term national security. If, however, it succeeds in securing credible and enforceable international commitments, it may become a pivotal step toward ending the war and reshaping the future European security order.