Experts say there is consensus on the need for credible assurances before any Russia-Ukraine deal, but divisions remain over what these could entail
As the push for a settlement to the Russia-Ukraine war intensifies, Western and European allies are locked in difficult talks over what kind of security guarantees could ensure Kyiv’s long-term protection – and what role the US and NATO might play in enforcing them.
While there is consensus that Ukraine will need credible assurances before signing any peace deal, divisions remain over whether those guarantees should involve direct military deployments, air defense commitments, or financial and weapons packages modeled on other security arrangements.
Analysts say the stakes are high: unless Ukraine is convinced it has a reliable shield against future Russian aggression, no political agreement will hold. For Moscow, experts believe any kind of agreement for Western troops on the ground or a NATO-like defense pact would be clear red lines.
“Ukraine has begun to understand that the best security guarantee it has is a strong military. We heard President (Volodymyr) Zelenskyy say this in Washington,” Lucian Kim, senior analyst on Ukraine at the International Crisis Group, told Anadolu.
Kim noted that while Ukraine would prefer sweeping foreign security commitments, it also understands that “the idea of boots on the ground or some kind of automatic intervention” is highly unlikely. “Especially because if there will be a comprehensive peace agreement with Russia, the Russians will have to also agree to such guarantees, and that is most certainly off the table,” he explained.
Ukraine and its European partners have pressed for a ceasefire paired with binding security assurances before entering any settlement with Moscow. During talks in Washington, US President Donald Trump, Zelenskyy, and European leaders explored ways of offering guarantees similar to NATO’s collective defense principle.
NATO chief Mark Rutte later confirmed that a group of 30 countries – led by the UK and France, and including Japan and Australia – is drafting a framework for long-term security commitments.
- A stronger Ukrainian army
Analysts say that since NATO membership is off the agenda, the most realistic guarantee lies in strengthening Ukraine’s military capacity. “The most important security guarantee is strong military support to the Ukrainian army ... (and) tightening sanctions,” said Daria Malling, policy advisor on Ukraine at the Center for Liberal Modernity in Berlin.
During a briefing in Washington, Zelenskyy said Kyiv has proposed buying $90 billion worth of American weapons as part of its security demands.
Timothy Ash, associate fellow in the Russia and Eurasia program at Chatham House, suggested that an “Israel model” could be applied, under which Ukraine receives guaranteed access to Western military hardware.
“In the end, Ukraine is left to defend itself, but there’s an assurance from the Americans and the rest of NATO that they will provide Ukraine with whatever ... conventional military capability to defend itself.”
He believes Ukraine is likely to secure access to the full spectrum of Western weapons, including F-16 and F-35 fighter jets.
- Debate over peacekeeping troops
While Kyiv has pushed for international deployments, analysts are cautious about whether European states would risk sending soldiers into Ukraine.
Malling said the idea is being discussed, but its scope remains uncertain. “We can expect arms supplies that will be paid by European partners and also maybe monitoring missions in case of possible hostilities,” she said.
Trump and his administration have repeatedly ruled out deploying US troops on the ground, but confirmed that air support remains under consideration.
Maximilian Hess, an associate Russia and Eurasia fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, explained that European allies are pushing Trump to support some form of permanent security presence.
“What Trump has spoken about is something where Europeans are closer to the front lines, and then the US is behind that, whether that comes in the form of EU troops on the ground in certain areas or UK troops as well,” he said.
“Then there would be the US providing air cover and technologies, basing that out of Romania and Poland, this all remains to be seen,” he said.
Yet Ash warned of serious risks. “There are question marks whether there are other Western allies willing to put boots on the ground, are they willing to fight Russian troops in that scenario, and … would the US be willing to back them in that scenario where they would have to engage Russian troops?”
Hess added that Moscow would almost certainly reject any such plan, recalling how Russia has used “peacekeepers” in the past to expand its influence. “The first thing is that we won’t see any peacekeeping force in place until an agreement has been reached, and there is no guarantee that an agreement still will be reached,” he said.
- Air defense initiatives
Another area under discussion is air defense, with analysts expecting European countries to pitch on that front, but also emphasizing Washington’s role.
“Air defense would be a very interesting initiative that might be very efficient … a sky shield for Ukraine or at least for parts of Ukraine territories, and it can be actually implemented right now even,” said Malling.
Hess added that European powers are signaling readiness to provide a reassurance force – a marked shift in posture. But Ash cautioned that their ability to sustain such operations without US support is limited.
“Many European countries – Italy, France, the UK, Germany – have significant air capability, but their ability to provide intelligence, logistics, supply of munitions to provide air coverage is limited without the Americans,” he said.
White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Wednesday that Trump had mentioned air support in an interview with Fox News, so “it is an option, and a possibility.”
Trump told Fox News that the US may provide air support to support European countries who are “willing to put people on the ground … because there is nobody (that) has the kind of stuff we have.”
“We may expect that the US might provide indirect military support to European forces without directly deploying its troops to Ukraine,” Malling said.
- Article 5 comparisons and past guarantees
Some have floated offering Ukraine Article 5-like assurances, though Malling questioned their real value.
“Contrary to popular belief, Article 5 does not oblige NATO member states ... to automatically intervene in a conflict,” she said, warning that declarative guarantees risk repeating the failed Budapest Memorandum of 1994.
“This way of providing Ukraine with such guarantees can be helpful, but as long as they remain just declarative … that won’t have any real meaning … A real NATO membership has no alternative.”
Analysts also recalled Ukraine’s bitter history with failed assurances. Kim pointed to 2014, when Russia illegally annexed Crimea despite the Budapest Memorandum having “several leading countries … (as) guarantors of Ukraine’s security in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons.”
“Ukraine saw that these guarantees, or as the Americans called them assurances, were worth nothing because Russia marched in,” he said.
