If Ukraine decides to sign any peace deal ending its 3 1/2 year war with Russia, security guarantees will have to be included. Persuading Kyiv’s allies to offer those guarantees was one of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s key objectives when he met with President Donald Trump and European leaders at the White House this week (the other one was staying on Trump’s good side).
The Europeans are backing up Zelensky on this point. With the cooperation of dozens of other countries, French President Emmanuel Macron and United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer formed a so-called “coalition of the willing” designed to enforce whatever peace is agreed to between Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The purpose of the project is clear: deter Putin from restarting the war at a later date.
Although Trump ruled out U.S. ground forces in Ukraine, he has insisted that the United States will help the French- and U.K.-led security initiative in some way, possibly by utilizing the U.S. Air Force to support the European ground forces deployed inside Ukraine.
That’s what we know so far. But there’s also a lot we don’t know, including how a European-led reassurance force in Ukraine would actually work, which countries would field the troops, whether this would be a sufficient deterrent for Zelensky, and whether the Russians would permit such an arrangement in the first place.
First, we should define what we mean by “security guarantees.” In its broadest form, the term essentially means that a country’s allies take some type of action on its behalf in the event of an attack. The gold standard of security guarantees is NATO’s Article 5, which states that an attack on one member of the alliance is an attack on the entire alliance. Of course, Ukraine isn’t a member of NATO, so Article 5 doesn’t apply here.
Yet different countries have different interpretations of what a security guarantee entails. It could run the gamut from military intervention to economic sanctions to a diplomatic statement condemning the aggressor. Some European states are leaning toward the maximalist view of what a security guarantee to Kyiv would include: a promise to go to war against Russia if Putin breaks a peace deal. London pledged to deploy thousands of British soldiers into Ukraine after a post-war settlement, as have the French.
However, others aren’t willing to go that far, either because they don’t want to risk a shooting war with the Russians (Italy), don’t have the military resources to participate meaningfully (Germany), or already share a border with Russia (Poland). The Europeans remain divided about the extent of any European troop deployment.
Trump’s description of a security guarantee has been more limited than what the British and French have contemplated. While Trump has assured that U.S. ground troops won’t be part of the scheme, even his reference to U.S. air support could be less than meets the eye. Macron and Starmer have spent months pushing Trump to station U.S. fighter aircraft in Eastern Europe, both to protect any European troops deployed to Ukraine and to bolster the credibility of the deterrent.
But it’s entirely possible this might be a bridge too far for Trump. If he granted that wish, Washington, D.C., would be signing up to a NATO-style defense commitment when the Trump administration is looking to downsize U.S. burdens in Europe. Trump or his successor would face two unpalatable choices if Russia attacked Ukraine again: get into a conflict with Moscow or stand by and watch as the reliability of U.S. security commitments is degraded.
We can’t forget about the Russians either. Two problems come to mind. First, would Putin view a Western security guarantee as credible? The Europeans might like to think so, but this is hardly a sure thing. While past conduct isn’t indicative of future behavior, the West has gone out of its way time and time again not to intervene directly on Ukraine’s behalf. This is for a simple reason: it doesn’t want to stumble into a war, or increase the chances of one, with a nuclear-armed Russia.
Whether it was the West’s quick rejection of a no-fly zone in Ukraine early in the conflict, the constant internal struggles about which offensive weapons systems to deliver to the Ukrainian army, or NATO’s repeated assertions that it doesn’t intend to fight Russia, the West’s hawkish rhetoric has outpaced its action. The Russians aren’t blind to this and might assume any Western guarantee could easily be tested.
AS PUTIN PREVARICATES, DETAILS OF UKRAINE PEACE PROPOSAL EMERGE
Second, this entire conversation might be for naught. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said, yet again, that Moscow won’t entertain any security guarantee for Ukraine that includes NATO member states. Instead, Moscow has returned to a scheme it first floated in March 2022, in which Russia would have the power to block any collective action to support Kyiv. In other words, Washington, D.C., and Europe have likely been putting in long hours on a security arrangement that will die the moment Putin reads it.
Meanwhile, the war has not ended, and the rumor mill about a Putin-Zelensky meeting continues to churn.
Daniel DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities.