Zelenskyy’s Resignation Offer: A Strategic Gambit for Peace and NATO Aspirations

Introduction

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s unprecedented offer to resign in exchange for either peace in Ukraine or NATO membership marks a pivotal moment in the three-year-old conflict with Russia.

Speaking at the “Ukraine. Year 2025” conference in Kyiv, Zelenskyy declared, “If you need me to leave this chair, I am ready to do that; and I also can exchange it for NATO membership for Ukraine”.

This proposal, framed as a concession to accelerate diplomatic resolutions, underscores Ukraine’s precarious balancing act between wartime exigencies and long-term strategic goals.

With 72% of Ukrainians opposing leadership changes under martial law and 69% trusting Zelenskyy’s stewardship, the offer reflects both political pragmatism and a rebuke to critics who have falsely accused him of authoritarianism.

Geopolitical Context of Zelenskyy’s Offer

Escalating Tensions with Russia and NATO’s Delayed Commitment

Zelenskyy’s resignation ultimatum emerges amid relentless Russian aggression, including the February 23, 2025, drone assault—the largest since Iran began supplying Moscow with UAVs—which killed one civilian and overwhelmed Ukraine’s air defenses.

Despite 29 bilateral security agreements signed with NATO allies, Ukraine’s membership bid remains stalled due to Article 5 complications and geopolitical hesitations.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth recently deemed Kyiv’s NATO accession “unrealistic,” highlighting the alliance’s reluctance to admit a nation actively at war.

Zelenskyy’s offer to “exchange” his presidency for membership thus serves as both a plea for collective security and a critique of NATO’s incrementalism.

The Trump-Zelenskyy Feud and Its Diplomatic Fallout

The proposal also responds to heightened tensions with former U.S. President Donald Trump, who falsely accused Ukraine of instigating the war and labeled Zelenskyy a “modestly successful comedian”.

Zelenskyy retorted that Trump was trapped in a “disinformation bubble” echoing Kremlin narratives.

This spat coincides with U.S.-Russia talks in Saudi Arabia, from which Kyiv was excluded—a move Trump defended by stating, “Zelenskyy’s presence isn’t crucial… three years of his leadership achieved nothing”.

Such rhetoric underscores the fragility of Ukraine’s Western alliances and Zelenskyy’s gamble to reframe his leadership as expendable for greater strategic gains.

Strategic Implications of the Resignation Proposal

Martial Law and Democratic Legitimacy

Under martial law—in effect since Russia’s 2022 invasion—Ukraine has postponed elections, fueling opposition claims of democratic backsliding.

Zelenskyy’s resignation offer directly counters these accusations by prioritizing national security over personal power. “I am the elected president, supported by 73% of Ukrainians.

Elections will occur after martial law ends,” he asserted, framing his potential departure as a sacrificial act rather than an evasion of accountability.

With 69% of Ukrainians preferring he remain until hostilities cease, the proposal paradoxically strengthens his legitimacy by demonstrating willingness to subordinate his tenure to Ukraine’s survival.

NATO Membership: Costs and Contingencies

Zelenskyy’s calculus hinges on NATO’s Article 5 mutual defense clause, which he views as the “cheapest security guarantee” compared to alternative arrangements.

However, alliance members remain divided: while Central European states advocate accelerated accession, Western powers cite risks of direct confrontation with Russia.

Zelenskyy’s offer implicitly challenges NATO to reassess its red lines, suggesting his resignation could mitigate political obstacles to membership.

Yet even if accepted, Ukraine’s admission would require resolving territorial disputes—a nonstarter given Russia’s occupation of 18% of Ukrainian land.

Domestic and International Reactions

Ukrainian Public Sentiment

Despite enduring air raids and economic strain, public backing for Zelenskyy remains robust.

A January 2025 Razumkov Center survey found 69% approval, while a Kyiv International Institute of Sociology poll showed 69% support for his retention until war’s end.

However, regional divides persist: only 15% favor elections under martial law, and 10% advocate transferring power to Parliament Speaker Ruslan Stefanchuk.

These figures reveal a populace prioritizing stability over political turnover, even as Zelenskyy’s resignation gambit tests their resolve.

European and U.S. Perspectives

European attitudes toward Zelenskyy are bifurcated: 47% view him positively, with support peaking in Nordic states (81% in Finland, 74% in Sweden), while Southern and Eastern Europe exhibit skepticism.

The U.S. remains Ukraine’s critical lifeline, yet Trump’s dismissive rhetoric—“Zelenskyy’s a dictator who let his country get devastated”—signals potential aid volatility amid election-year politics.

Meanwhile, Russia’s Foreign Ministry dismissed the resignation offer as a “publicity stunt,” reiterating demands for Ukraine’s neutralization.

Pathways to Peace and NATO: Scenarios and Obstacles

Scenario 1: Resignation for Peace

Should Zelenskyy step down as part of a ceasefire agreement, his successor would inherit fraught negotiations with Moscow.

Russia’s insistence on recognizing annexed territories (Crimea, Donbas) as non-negotiable precludes meaningful dialogue, while Ukraine’s constitution mandates elections within 90 days of martial law’s end—a timeline incompatible with protracted talks.

Moreover, Zelenskyy’s exit could embolden Kremlin hardliners, perceiving weakness in Kyiv’s leadership transition.

Scenario 2: NATO Membership in Exchange

Zelenskyy’s resignation-for-NATO formula faces steep hurdles. Alliance consensus requires unanimous approval, with Hungary and Turkey previously blocking Ukraine’s Membership Action Plan.

Even if admitted, Article 5’s activation during ongoing hostilities risks drawing NATO into direct conflict—a prospect Germany and France deem untenable.

Alternatively, bilateral security pacts—like the U.K.-Ukraine agreement guaranteeing military support—may emerge as interim solutions, albeit without NATO’s collective deterrence.

The Peacekeeping Troop Dilemma

Zelenskyy’s proposal for a 100,000-strong European peacekeeping force highlights the vacuum left by NATO’s indecision.

However, EU nations face logistical and political constraints: deploying troops to active conflict zones exceeds most states’ risk tolerance, while Russia would likely veto any UN-sanctioned mission.

This impasse reinforces Zelenskyy’s contention that only NATO membership can durably safeguard Ukraine’s sovereignty.

Conclusion: Zelenskyy’s Legacy and Ukraine’s Crossroads

President Zelenskyy’s resignation offer encapsulates Ukraine’s existential quandary: securing immediate survival without sacrificing long-term sovereignty.

By staking his presidency on NATO membership or peace, he challenges Western allies to match Ukrainian sacrifices with concrete commitments.

However, the proposal also risks emboldening adversaries who equate leadership change with strategic vulnerability.

As Russia’s nightly drone strikes erode Ukraine’s defenses, and Trump’s ambivalence clouds U.S. support, Zelenskyy’s gambit may ultimately hinge on whether NATO redefines its thresholds for unity in the face of authoritarian aggression.

The coming months will test whether his willingness to “exchange” power translates into tangible security guarantees—or becomes a footnote in Ukraine’s struggle for democratic endurance.