Security assurance has been a central focus in debate over Ukraine’s peace agreements, and its “start to end the war” at the White House on Monday.
Zelensky knows that in the long run, Russia’s excellent numbers and weapons will crush Ukrainian resistance. So he has long argued that the agreement must provide Ukraine with a promise that the US and Europe will prevent Russians from resuming the attack in a year or two.
Here’s what you need to know about this important part of the deal to end the war in Ukraine:
What does security guarantee look like and who is involved?
First, this is an unknown territory. “The “Union of Will,” a group of important Ukraine’s allies, is still addressing what it can realistically offer.
The purpose is clear enough. It is to stop Russians from new attacks on Ukraine in the coming years. The shape is not very clear, but there will be plans to apply force to the ground and support Ukraine from the sea and into the air. He also had support for the reconstruction of the Ukrainian army, and is now tired of the war for over three years.
In fact, Zelensky argues that the powerful Ukrainian army itself is one of the security guarantees. French President Emmanuel Macron emphasized the support of the robust Ukrainian forces, the robust Ukrainian forces that can stop and stop them, therefore there is no limit to their numbers, capabilities or weapons.”
Earlier this year, the UK and France came up with the concept of multinational forces, which British Prime Minister Kiel Starmer said would “develop following a ceasefire to stop Russian attacks for years to come.”
Initially, there were talks about both countries leading the conditions for the approximately 30,000 troops deployed in Ukraine. It ended up discussing smaller deterrents offered by allies, including ocean, air and training elements, and more “security umbrellas.”
Approximately 30 countries have registered with the Union. However, it is still unknown that they are each ready to contribute. Countries like Germany and Italy are reluctant to violate ground forces. Australia and Canada may be more pleased.
The Union “provides peace of mind in the sea, in the air and in the lands that the Allies are ready to offer to Ukraine,” Macron said Monday. He added: “We need to support Ukraine with boots on the ground to ensure there are no invasions from Russia in the future.”
However, before hostility ceases, there is no chance that this future force will be deployed in and around Ukraine, giving the Kremlin what some analysts call a strong veto.
“We’re already working on the specifics of our security assurance,” Zelensky said Tuesday. This is a process that will continue at high temperatures over the next few weeks.
But here’s the problem. A full-scale guarantee unit covered over the 1,000-kilometer (600 miles) frontline requires well over 100,000 men.
For example, in the 1990s, 60,000 powerful NATO corps were deployed at the much smaller frontline of the Bosnian War.
Now add to what you need to understand logistics, rotations, and command structure. Rules of involvement in the event of a ceasefire violation. This requires that all governments agree with the troops on the ground.
According to a report from the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), “It has been resolved that the deployed forces must be reliable by Moscow and that they will act decisively in the event of a ceasefire violation.”
What’s more feasible, according to military analysts, could be a deterrent of a troop of around 10,000 people, a kind of warning to Russia, with price tags attached to resuming the attack. This unit is located in Ukraine, but it is not necessarily close to the forefront.
“The deterrent effect on Russian forces will mostly be achieved through its very existence, as it limits the capabilities of high-intensity combat operations,” IISS said of the option.
not much. During the war there was considerable intelligence sharing with weapons pipelines from both Europe and the US. And there has been a lot of talk during the Biden administration about Ukraine’s route to either full NATO membership or partnership status. But when Trump took office, that prospect disappeared.
Over the weekend, Trump repeated that Ukraine would not be allowed to participate in the US-led security alliance, in line with key Russian demand.
Before the complete Russian invasion there was a private surveillance mission run by European security cooperation agencies that tracked offences along the frontlines of eastern Ukraine. However, it was never equipped to provide security assurances and was often ignored by both parties.
It’s the elephant in the room.
It’s only been the last few days that US President Donald Trump has been led by the idea that the United States is involved in providing security assurances for Ukraine. Previously, he and other members of the regime had been frankly saying that it was the responsibility of the Europeans.
Trump was vague about the nature of his commitment in his White House speech on Monday. He proposed in a post about the True Society that guarantees “it will be provided by various European countries in coordination with the United States.”
However, Trump rejected the prospect of US troops deploying on Ukrainian soil on Tuesday.
“It will be discussed in the next few days – our involvement – our involvement – our involvement -,” NATO Executive Director Mark Latte said in an interview with Fox News.
However, Rutte explained that US involvement was a “breakthrough.” This is because the Russians do not try to take the idea of European guarantee forces seriously without the US taking it on.
The United States has important capabilities that Europeans do not. Its intelligence newsletter and its ability to suppress large enemy air defenses are just two examples. But the Trump administration will be wary of the US role that could lead to escalation.
In a nutshell, no. On Monday, he reiterated the claim that there are no troops from the NATO country on Ukrainian soil. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has rejected “any scenario that envisages the participation of NATO countries and the appearance of military forces in Ukraine.”
Moscow also argues that peace reconciliation includes limits on the number and capabilities of Ukrainian forces. It also deserves security guarantees and has always argued that NATO’s Eastern Expansion is one of the root causes of conflict.
It’s in conflict with Trump’s claim that Putin agreed that Russia agreed to accept Ukraine’s security guarantee, which is one of the key points we need to consider.”
The question is whether Putin can persuade Ukraine to have any kind of security assurance in exchange for closing the interests of the Russian battlefield, or for example, acknowledging Russia’s sovereignty.
There is another risk. Russia may be tempted to test its guaranteed resolve by devising pretexts for new military action. Second, this could fall into Putin’s greatest ambition. Splitting the Transatlantic Alliance, the US doesn’t want to follow up on the security assurances that Europeans have committed themselves to.
There is now further debate about some of the security guarantees that come in the form of Ukrainian air covers. It is a bit like the 1990s plane zone over Iraq and is designed to prevent attacks by Saddam Hussein’s army against minorities.
“The greatest deterrent effect is achieved by placing combat air elements as well as the ground within Ukraine,” says IISS. There is a possibility that more air forces will be stationed in Poland and Romania.
Such beings will provide surveillance and reconnaissance, but if challenged by the Russians, they will struggle to maintain the superiority of the air. And, for example, if a fighter engages in air combat, there is a risk of rapid escalation.
He also says that certain observers, airpower, and ground forces are like eggs and bacon.
And Ukrainians want commitment rather than involvement.
