No one, in the last week, has had to swallow more toads than Volodymyr Zelensky to bring the war between Russia and Ukraine to the negotiating table. During the last summit at the White House, the American president demolished several of Kiev's fixed points regarding the conflict: from the need for a ceasefire to the refusal of territorial concessions, to the recognition of Vladimir Putin as a legitimate interlocutor. All in an attempt to achieve what, to date, is the most important objective for his country: obtaining security guarantees that will prevent the Russian president from attacking his country again. Some are unquestionable conditions, at least for Kiev, others are hopes, others still are utopian fantasies. Various guarantee formulas have been proposed by the various actors, and these are the ones that Ukrainian, Russian, American, and European diplomats and military leaders are currently discussing.
Ukraine in NATO... or the EU
The Ukrainian president, from the beginning, had one hope: his country's entry into the Atlantic Pact or at least the European Union to ensure a defensive shield. However, there are significant differences between the two options. The Alliance has always emphasized that membership would only be possible during a period of peace, so as to avoid immediate involvement of NATO countries in a conflict with Russia. This option, however, faces firm and irrevocable opposition from Moscow: if Putin considers the Atlantic Pact's eastward expansion one, if not the main, motivation for his military intervention in Ukraine, it is very difficult to imagine him accepting Kiev's accession, which would formalize an even greater NATO presence along its borders. Added to this is the fact that the Alliance's doors could only open to Kiev if all 32 member countries give their assent. But there is no shortage of opponents, especially the United States.
The option of joining the European Union is different. The Commission took the initiative immediately, and the accession process was launched and advanced with unusual speed by European standards. Joining the club of EU states would prevent Kiev from enjoying the protection of military powers like the United States or Turkey, but the Union nevertheless includes security clauses in its treaties to guarantee its members. This seems a much more viable option once the conflict is over. The only obstacle: the veto of Viktor Orban's Hungarian government.
Italian-Style Article 5
The Italian proposal regarding the possibility of signing bilateral defense agreements between NATO countries and Ukraine has met with great success in Brussels, as evidenced by recent statements by EU Council President Antonio Costa. This would not be an additional clause to the Alliance's treaties, but a series of external agreements aimed at offering Kiev guarantees similar to those provided for in Article 5 of the Atlantic Pact. According to reports, the signatory states would thus be required to evaluate within approximately 24 hours a form of support for Zelensky's country in the event of an attack. The options, Bloomberg reports, citing sources familiar with the matter, would include providing Kiev with rapid and sustained defense support, economic assistance, strengthening the Ukrainian military, and imposing sanctions. It's unclear whether the plan will involve individual countries sending troops.
Such a formula would not require Ukraine to comply with the obligations set forth in the North Atlantic Treaty, some of which are unacceptable to Moscow: from the requirement of a minimum annual defense spending to the offer of territory for the construction of bases and the holding of exercises. This proposal appears to have been successful within the group of the so-called" willing," raising hopes of broad participation, and does not appear to overly bother Russia.
Direct military involvement had also been hypothesized, to varying degrees, by France and Great Britain , leading the group of"willing" countries. However, during the meetings held in Paris and London , the group proved to be far too heterogeneous. For months, the two European powers had been considering sending troops to Ukrainian territory both before and after the end of the war. This proposal Moscow deems unacceptable, given that, they say,"we will never accept the presence of NATO troops on Ukrainian soil." Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron then attempted to scale back the proposal, suggesting a layered military presence that would place the troops of the"willing" not on the front lines, but in the rear, to prevent any advances into European territory.
This option, however, has also found little support from a large portion of the countries involved, so much so that, to date, there is limited talk of surveillance of Ukrainian airspace by deploying aircraft to bases in neighboring Poland or Romania , with the participation of the United States. Even Donald Trump, in fact, has publicly opened up to this option, even though sources in Brussels contacted by Ilfattoquotidiano.it maintain that Washington will in any case do everything to avoid even the slightest involvement in Ukrainian security issues. Furthermore, clear rules of engagement will have to be established for the pilots. On the ground, however, at most training, intelligence and logistical support activities could be carried out.
Another form of support could also be considered for the seas, particularly the Black Sea. Here, the proximity to the Crimean Peninsula could create problems for Ukrainian trade routes departing from ports such as Odessa. In this regard, the presence of naval vessels from allied states could protect vessels from possible attacks by the Russian fleet.
Who's in and who's out?
Beyond the clauses, what will make a difference in the level of security offered to Ukraine will also be the number of countries that decide to join a potential defense plan. Zelensky has emphasized this several times: the United States' commitment will be crucial. But based on Donald Trump's statements, it doesn't seem like Washington has much desire to offer its defensive umbrella to Kiev, except with a very limited commitment. On this point, he has been clear:"Ukraine's security is Europe's task. We will provide support, we'll see how," he has reiterated several times.
Even in Europe, however, support is not as automatic as it may seem. First, intervention alongside Ukraine remains an option left to individual states, as is the case with NATO's Article 5. And without American commitment, these countries' willingness to engage in a potential direct confrontation with Moscow will be entirely unclear. Furthermore, agreements remain, but governments change. And within EU countries, there are parties far from favorable to a binding commitment to guarantee Kiev's security.
