NATO has promised since 2008 that Ukraine would someday become a member of the Western security alliance. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has pleaded repeatedly, but unsuccessfully, for an updated, upgraded pledge that Kyiv would be able to join once the war ends.

But now former NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who has been a paid adviser to Ukrainian politicians for nearly a decade, has gone public with a proposal that has many observers shaking their heads.

With no end to the war in sight, Rasmussen has said the alliance should nevertheless offer Ukraine membership without regaining Crimea, Donbas and the other territories that have been illegally annexed by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Rasmussen has argued that covering Ukraine with NATO's collective security guarantee, Article 5, would deter Putin from trying to take additional land.

But even some leaders who have strongly advocated Ukraine's rapid accession to NATO have said they find the Rasmussen formula unacceptable. Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis doesn't even want a cease-fire option raised with Putin, calling the idea "shameful."

"Any sort of negotiation is a lead-up to a victory day in Moscow," he said at a European Union foreign ministers' meeting on Monday. "Notions of giving away territory go against international law. Territorial integrity is something that has to be sacrosanct."

"Giving away 'something for something'," Landsbergis added, shaking his head, "it should not work like this."

Few fans of the plan in Kyiv

Speaking to DW from Kyiv, Ukrainian parliamentarian Andrii Osadchuk agreed that this is a non-starter for Ukraine.

"Any cease-fire, any freezing of the conflict, any compromise with evil will just give time for Russia to reload," he said, questioning whether NATO would even consider a country not in full control of its territory.

But Osadchuk also believes Russia would reject such a suggestion, keeping its sights set on greater gains.

"They still believe that they can swallow all of Ukraine slowly, like a big snake," he said. "Only the lack of readiness of the West to fight — not for Ukraine, but to fight for the West — is giving all these 'experts' grounds for such 'amazing' ideas, which have nothing to do with reality at all."

Trial balloon burst?

But it's not the first time the idea has come up. In August, Stian Jenssen, the chief of staff for current NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, suggested during a conference in Norway that one possible outcome could involve Ukraine giving up some of its territory in exchange for NATO membership.

When these comments, originally in Norwegian, made it to the international press, there was an immediate uproar in Kyiv and among some of its supporters. Within 24 hours, Stoltenberg had to reconfirm that NATO supports Ukraine regaining its territorial integrity; Jenssen had to say he had misspoken.

What happens to 'Crimea is Ukraine'?

Analyst Edward Hunter Christie, a former defense economist at NATO, said this is just one example of real mistakes being made with regard to Ukraine — not just in words, but in deeds.

"There is a gap between official positions which express the ideal outcome of Ukraine recovering its entire territory and the actual level of aid — of military aid in particular — that allies are prepared to give," Hunter Christie told DW.

"It is quite extraordinary, and frankly bizarre, that while on the one hand diplomatically, our position is that Crimea is Ukraine and Ukraine has a right to recover its entire territory, but at the same time, we've steadily refused to give them longer-range weapons. They need the full range of tools so that they have a real chance of changing facts on the ground and then we can see where diplomacy leads."

Analysts: Tanks before talks 

Bruno Lete of the German Marshall Fund, an American think tank, is similarly puzzled as to how Rasmussen believes security guarantees would work for Ukraine. "How will you deter Russia from attacking Ukraine once Ukraine is inside the alliance?" he wondered. "Does it mean NATO will be sending boots on the ground? Does it mean that we need to think about a multinational brigade for Ukraine similar to what is now in place in the Baltics?"

Lete agreed with Hunter Christie that the road to peace leads through military superiority for Kyiv. "Only then Ukraine will be able to negotiate a deal where it doesn't get totally disadvantaged," he said.

Lete believes that despite the fact this proposal comes from someone now outside of NATO, "there's no denying that this option is part of the package of ideas that the alliance is discussing. I think NATO's also increasingly under stress to make good on its 2008 promise to Ukraine that [it] would one day become a member of NATO," he said, adding however that the Rasmussen recipe is "not a victory for Kyiv and not a victory for the West."

Hunter Christie underscored that NATO has pledged to help restore the full territory of Ukraine. "And strategically and militarily and legally and for the international reputation and prestige of the alliance, we need to go all the way with this," he emphasized.

But more and more signs suggest that the NATO-members' support for Ukraine's fight is fading.

Edited by: J. Wingard