Security Guarantees for Ukraine: A Path to Peace or Illusion?

The prospect of security guarantees for Ukraine has become a focal point in discussions to end the ongoing conflict stemming from Russia’s invasion. On August 17, 2023, Steve Witkoff, the White House special envoy, highlighted the potential for “Article 5-like protections” for Ukraine, emphasizing that such guarantees could shift the dynamics of the conflict. This statement follows agreements made during the Alaska summit, though specific details regarding these proposed assurances were not disclosed.

The term “Article 5-like” refers to NATO’s foundational treaty, which stipulates that an armed attack on one member is considered an attack on all. It is crucial to note that Article 5 does not automatically mandate military intervention; rather, it allows for collective action deemed necessary by member states. Since NATO’s inception in 1949, this provision has only been invoked once, following the September 11 attacks in the United States, which led to varying responses from member countries.

A proposed quasi-Article 5 arrangement for Ukraine would borrow the collective defense concept without granting NATO membership, a scenario that Donald Trump has ruled out. Instead, it would create a tailored agreement among participating nations, dependent on the specifics negotiated by those involved. The effectiveness of such a framework hinges on the clarity of commitments and the speed with which allies are willing to respond in the event of further aggression against Ukraine.

Skepticism surrounds the feasibility of these guarantees, particularly among Ukrainians who recall the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. This agreement provided security assurances to Ukraine in exchange for relinquishing its nuclear arsenal but has failed to prevent subsequent Russian military actions. The apprehension is shared beyond Ukraine’s borders; Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski underscored that the primary issue is not a lack of assurances but rather a history of non-compliance with existing agreements. He referenced Putin’s ratification of the Treaty on the Russian-Ukrainian Border in April 2004, suggesting that adherence to such treaties could have averted the current conflict.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen expressed support for the proposed security guarantees, stating the European Union is prepared to contribute. She articulated a vision in which Ukraine becomes a formidable deterrent against potential aggressors, describing it as a “steel porcupine.”

The geopolitical implications of these guarantees present a paradox. If the proposed assurances genuinely replicate NATO’s deterrent effect, it raises questions about why the Kremlin would accept them. One possibility is that Russia might view non-NATO guarantees as less binding and more negotiable. When asked directly on CNN whether Russia would permit “Article 5 guarantees of NATO,” Witkoff responded that an agreement had been reached allowing the United States and European nations to offer similar language for security guarantees.

Conversely, if these guarantees are diluted to secure Russian approval, there is a risk they may fail to deter aggression. The effectiveness of any security arrangement will ultimately depend on the commitments outlined in the agreement and the willingness of allied nations to act decisively if Ukraine faces further attacks.

In summary, the discussion surrounding security guarantees for Ukraine is complex and fraught with challenges. As the international community evaluates the feasibility of such measures, it remains to be seen whether these “Article 5-like” protections can provide the meaningful security Ukraine desperately seeks or if they will fall short, continuing the cycle of conflict and uncertainty.