Asked whether a Russian–Ukrainian settlement would need to be permanent, John Kiriakou agreed that it would and set out the shape he expected it to take.[1]
Territory
“It”s going to have to be that the Russians keep Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, Crimea — the Russian-speaking areas that they control de facto now. I think they”ll end up controlling formally once this is over.”[2]
The membership question
The second Russian condition, he says, is that “Ukraine cannot ever be a member of NATO.” His response is that the condition costs less than it appears to: “But that”s a misnomer, because Ukraine doesn”t have to be a member of NATO. Australia is not a member of NATO. Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, UAE — they”re not members of NATO. They”re what”s called major non-NATO allies. That”s an official status.” He expects the United States to concede the point in form and recover it in substance: “I wouldn”t be surprised if the United States agrees with the Russians that no, Ukraine should not be a member of NATO — it will never be a member of NATO. But it could be granted major non-NATO ally status, thus giving it essentially the same rights as a NATO country.”[3][4]
The Russian concession
“And I think what the Russians will concede is that Ukraine will get fast-track membership in the European Union. And then the EU begins the rebuilding of Ukraine, and that”s going to be the end of it.” His summary is that the war is close to its end and that the end will disappoint the side he is on: “the end is not going to be what the United States and Ukraine have hoped for, but it”s going to be enough to put this thing to rest.”[4][5]
What the status actually buys
Kiriakou has described the designation as a real instrument rather than a courtesy, and defined it by what it unlocks. Japan, he noted in April 2024, had been given “major non-NATO ally status — that”s an actual status, with capital letters. Saudi Arabia is a major non-NATO ally. Bahrain is a major non-NATO ally. My guess is the Philippines is going to get it soon.”[6]
Asked what it means in practice: “they have access to some weapons and weapon systems that they otherwise wouldn”t have access to. For example the UAE, Australia, Saudi Arabia — they have access to the F-35. So we”ll give the F-35 to the Japanese as well. And we don”t for other countries — in fact Turkey is a member of NATO and we won”t give them the F-35.”[7]
He attaches to it a separate objection about the alliance”s spending rule: the two per cent of GDP guideline is met by only “three or four NATO countries”, and yet “we”re demanding it, and we”re forcing them to spend more money. It”s very dangerous.”[8]