Beyond NATO: Why Zaluzhnyi Is Urging Ukraine to Pivot to Regional Coalitions

His assessment carries unusual weight because it comes from a commander whose authority was built on the battlefield rather than in diplomatic corridors. As one of Ukraine's most trusted military figures, Zaluzhnyi’s comments represent more than a personal critique — they hint at a broader shift in how Kyiv is beginning to evaluate its long-term security options.

A Critique of NATO's Military Thinking

Zaluzhnyi's argument was less about diplomacy than about military effectiveness. He questioned whether NATO, in its current form, is equipped for the kind of warfare Ukraine has been fighting since Russia's full-scale invasion.

According to him, the Alliance is still operating under doctrines developed for another era. Ukraine's military, by contrast, has been forced to reinvent itself in real time, adapting to a battlefield dominated by drones, electronic warfare, constant surveillance and rapidly changing technology.

From his perspective, this has created a widening gap between NATO's planning culture and the realities of modern combat. He argued that the Alliance could spend another decade trying to modernise and still struggle to reach the level of operational effectiveness that today's battlefield demands.

That assessment is unusually direct, particularly from a diplomat serving in London, one of NATO's key capitals. Yet Zaluzhnyi did not argue that Ukraine should distance itself from Western partners. He made clear that Kyiv still depends on technologies available only from NATO countries, including advanced air defence systems, anti-ballistic missile capabilities and space-based assets.

His criticism was aimed at the institution rather than the countries that make it up.

Looking Beyond Membership

Instead of urging Ukraine to continue focusing on the long and uncertain path towards NATO accession, Zaluzhnyi proposed a more practical approach. Kyiv, he argued, should invest far more effort in regional security frameworks that are able to react quickly and bring together countries facing similar threats.

For him, the Joint Expeditionary Force stands out as the strongest example.

Led by the United Kingdom, the JEF was created as a flexible coalition rather than a traditional military alliance. Its ten members work together voluntarily, allowing participating governments to act without the lengthy consensus-building that often slows decision-making inside larger organisations.

That flexibility is precisely what Zaluzhnyi believes Europe increasingly needs.

More Than Another Military Partnership

The appeal of the Joint Expeditionary Force lies in the way it is organised. Unlike NATO, it does not rely on every member agreeing before action can be taken. Participation is voluntary, allowing countries that are ready to respond to move quickly instead of waiting for lengthy political negotiations.

That difference has become increasingly important as European governments confront security threats that evolve faster than traditional decision-making processes.

Ukraine is already part of that framework. In November 2025, it became the first non-founding country to receive Enhanced Opportunities Partner status within the JEF. The arrangement opened the door to closer intelligence sharing, joint exercises and cooperation on air defence, drones and the protection of critical infrastructure.

Zaluzhnyi admitted that the organisation is still developing. Its command structure, established in 2015, has not yet reached the level of readiness he believes is necessary. Even so, he argued that Ukraine should have invested much earlier in building closer ties with the group. In his view, it offers a more realistic path than continuing to wait for political decisions on NATO enlargement.

Europe Is Already Changing Its Security Model

What makes Zaluzhnyi's comments particularly significant is that they fit into a broader trend across Europe.

For decades, NATO has been the unquestioned centre of the continent's security architecture. But Russia's war against Ukraine has exposed the limits of relying solely on one large alliance where every major decision depends on consensus.

As a result, smaller regional groupings have begun taking on a larger role. They are designed to react faster, focus on specific threats, and bring together countries with similar security priorities.

The JEF is one example of that shift. Its members recently agreed to establish multinational maritime forces that will complement NATO rather than replace it. The message is clear: regional coalitions are increasingly expected to fill operational gaps that larger institutions struggle to address quickly.

For Kyiv, this approach offers something NATO membership cannot currently provide - a framework where cooperation can expand immediately instead of depending on years of political negotiations.

Ukraine Is Bringing Experience, Not Just Requests

Another important change is Ukraine's position inside European security discussions.

For years, Kyiv approached Western institutions largely as a country seeking protection and assistance. That balance is beginning to change.

After years of full-scale war, Ukraine possesses operational experience that few European militaries can match. Its armed forces have transformed the use of drones, electronic warfare and real-time battlefield intelligence under combat conditions rather than during exercises.

That experience has become one of Ukraine's strongest strategic assets.

Instead of joining regional defence initiatives simply to receive security guarantees, Kyiv increasingly has something valuable to contribute. It can offer practical knowledge that partners are eager to study as European militaries adapt to the realities of modern warfare.

This is one reason why defence cooperation is shifting beyond weapons deliveries towards joint development, intelligence exchange and defence-industrial collaboration.

The relationship is becoming increasingly reciprocal rather than one-sided.

The Political Obstacles Have Not Disappeared

Regional defence initiatives, however, are not free from political complications.

The Bucharest Nine, which brings together NATO members on the Alliance's eastern flank, illustrates the problem. While its members broadly agree on the need to strengthen regional security and increase defence spending, the group has never developed into a genuine operational military framework. Political disagreements - particularly over support for Ukraine - have repeatedly limited what it can achieve.

That is why analysts increasingly discuss the possibility of a more focused Baltic-to-Black Sea security arrangement involving countries such as Poland, Romania, the Baltic states and Ukraine. The idea is not to build a rival to NATO but to create a coalition able to coordinate air and missile defence, protect maritime routes, improve logistics and integrate rapidly evolving technologies, including uncrewed systems.

Whether such a format eventually emerges remains uncertain. Political differences inside Europe have not disappeared, and existing institutions are unlikely to surrender influence without debate. Yet the conversation itself shows that governments on NATO's eastern flank are looking for ways to strengthen deterrence without waiting for every strategic decision to pass through larger multilateral bodies.

A Debate That Extends Beyond Ukraine

Zaluzhnyi's remarks were striking not simply because he questioned Ukraine's chances of joining NATO. They challenged a much broader assumption—that Europe's security will continue to revolve around a single institutional centre.

His argument points instead to a future in which NATO remains indispensable but is increasingly complemented by smaller, faster coalitions built around common strategic interests and operational readiness.

For the United Kingdom, that would reinforce its position as one of Europe's leading security organisers through the Joint Expeditionary Force. For Ukraine, it would mean moving from the role of a country seeking admission into Western security structures to becoming one of the states helping shape how those structures evolve.