As Ukraine gradually abandons its ambition to join NATO in the near future, the Eastern European nation is seeking the most viable alternative: security guarantees similar to article 5 of the alliance. Article 5 stipulates that an attack against one member is considered an attack against the entire alliance, and NATO will coordinate a response.

President Volodymyr Zelensky and senior Ukrainian officials state that peace agreements not backed by military strength and security commitments will inevitably fail in the future.

Following talks in Berlin, Germany last week between US, Ukrainian, and European officials, Washington announced it would provide the security guarantees Kyiv desires. This marks the first time the US has made such a specific commitment, aiming to persuade Ukraine to accept concessions, such as abandoning NATO ambitions, and move towards negotiations to end the conflict.

In a joint statement on Ukraine, European leaders mentioned the establishment of a "multinational force in Ukraine" led by Europe with voluntary participation from other countries. This force would support Kyiv in rebuilding its military, protecting its airspace, and enhancing maritime security, operating within Ukrainian territory.

A Ukrainian and US delegation at a meeting in Berlin, Germany on 14/12. Photo: Reuters

The statement also refers to a US-led mechanism for monitoring and verifying a ceasefire. It includes a "legally binding commitment" to "restore peace and security" if Ukraine is attacked in the future, through measures including "force, intelligence, logistical, economic, and diplomatic support."

Susan Stewart, a member of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), says the new commitments are "very important" for Ukraine, as the US and Europe have declared they will act if Russia continues to attack Ukraine after a ceasefire agreement is signed.

She believes this commitment is similar to the guarantees provided to NATO members but notes that even article 5 does not stipulate that every attack must be met with military action. Instead, each nation will use methods it deems necessary and appropriate. Therefore, there is no guarantee that parties will deploy military forces if Russia attacks Ukraine again.

Claudia Major, a security expert at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, believes these security guarantees are "merely supportive," not a legally binding obligation for European nations or the US to deploy troops to protect Ukraine if it is attacked.

"Will Western troops be deployed? Will anyone come to protect Ukraine as they would protect NATO members? The answer is no," Major said.

Ukrainian MP Oleksandr Merezhko emphasizes that article 5 is an effective deterrent because it is "part of an institution" protected by the full strength of NATO. He argues that the only way for security guarantees to work for Ukraine is to consider any attack on the country as an attack on the United States itself.

"Otherwise, they might be trying to deceive us again with empty promises that lack legal value, similar to what happened with the Budapest Memorandum," he warned.

The 1994 Budapest Memorandum was an agreement where Ukraine accepted to relinquish its Soviet-era nuclear weapons stockpile in exchange for security assurances from Russia, the US, and the UK. However, those assurances failed when conflict still erupted in Ukraine.

German Prime Minister Friedrich Merz suggested that Europe would deploy peacekeeping forces to monitor a "demilitarized zone" and act against Russian attacks. However, he also admitted, "we have not reached that step yet."

Jenny Mathers, a senior lecturer in international politics at Aberystwyth University in the UK, warns there is no guarantee that President Trump would honor such a commitment if he does not wish to intervene militarily in Europe, something he has always tried to avoid. Even among NATO members, confidence in article 5 has wavered after President Trump stated he would not defend countries that fail to spend enough on defense as required.

Experts also express skepticism about Russia's willingness to accept Western forces providing security guarantees on Ukrainian territory. Regardless of what Trump's team and Ukrainian officials agree upon, Russia remains a decisive factor in any agreement. Peace is unlikely to be achieved quickly if Moscow does not agree to the conditions proposed by the West.

The Kremlin has long considered Ukraine's non-membership in NATO a mandatory requirement in peace agreement terms, while firmly opposing any presence of Western troops in Ukraine post-conflict.

Experts predict that future Ukraine peace talks will proceed according to two scenarios. First, Russia will view the NATO article 5-style security commitments as serious and reject the agreement, sending negotiations back to square one. The second scenario is that Russia accepts the agreement, implying they believe the US will not seriously uphold its security commitments to Ukraine.

"It's highly unlikely that Russia would agree to such a deal unless there was some indication that the US would never follow through on what it committed to Ukraine," Mathers commented.

Currently, what the West has proposed to Ukraine is too vague and fragile, to the point where the Kremlin feels "comfortable and willing" to push for further discussions around security guarantees, according to Mathieu Boulegue, a Eurasian security expert.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Berlin, Germany on 15/12. Photo: AP

Wilfried Jilge, a member of the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP), worries that the current negotiations could lead to another Minsk agreement.

The Minsk agreement was promoted by the Normandy Four, comprising Russia, Ukraine, France, and Germany, in the capital of Belarus in 2015, aiming to end the bloody conflict that had lasted ten months in the Donbass region between the Ukrainian government army and Russian-backed separatists. However, the agreement was never fully implemented, leading to continued fighting as its main issues remained unresolved.

Jilge warns that the idea of a "security buffer zone" in Donbass, to which Russia would have access in a peace proposal, also carries risks. "As long as the Russians are present in that area, even if only as a police force, the rules will soon be broken," the expert said.

Although current guarantees remain weak and ambiguous, expert Mathieu Boulegue believes this could be a "first step" in a long roadmap to resolving the Ukrainian crisis. "You can't go straight from zero to deploying 100,000 NATO troops there to confront Russia," Boulegue stated.

Thanh Tam (According to Kyiv Independent, DW, Politico, Asia Times)