Guarantees without guarantees: Can Ukraine be shielded from another Russian invasion?

Fossils can't repel attacks

A rare earth metals deal, derailed by a spat between the Ukrainian and U.S. presidents, was meant to include security guarantees—at least, that’s what Volodymyr Zelenskyy hoped.

Instead, Donald Trump’s administration saw it solely as a way to offset U.S. costs for supporting Ukraine. The American president broadly believes the deal itself is a security guarantee, rendering others unnecessary.

“There’s sort of automatic security because nobody’s going to be messing around with our people when we’re there,” Trump said.

Ukraine disagrees. Zelenskyy stressed that American businesses are already in Ukraine, yet it hasn’t stopped Russian attacks.

“Zelenskyy is trying to secure economic cooperation to bring in various foreign companies… Theoretically, this could be [an element of security guarantees]. That is, foreign companies coming here would naturally want a stable security situation in Ukraine that doesn’t threaten their operations,” Alina Hrytsenko, an expert at the Research Solutions analytical network, told hromadske.

The final draft of the deal, prepared for signing, stated that the United States supports “Ukraine's efforts to obtain security guarantees needed to establish lasting peace.” The wording does not specify what those guarantees entail.

If signed, the U.S.-Ukraine rare earth metals deal could be one piece of a broader guarantee system, but not the only one, former Foreign Minister Volodymyr Ohryzko told hromadske.

By itself, a deal on minerals can’t be a security guarantee. It’s about extracting resources, but we need an agreement on potentially repelling another Russian aggression. With minerals, I don’t think we can fulfill that function.Volodymyr Ohryzko, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine from December 2007 to March 2009

The significance of peacekeepers is exaggerated

Europe has its own vision for ensuring peace in Ukraine. Media have long reported that several European nations are considering sending a military contingent. Recently, those reports gained clarity.

“We will deploy a contingent to Ukraine to safeguard the implementation of this (peace—ed.) agreement. We’ll go further to build a coalition of the willing to protect the agreement in Ukraine and guarantee peace,” said U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

Later, French Finance Minister Éric Lombard noted that his country and “other European nations” are also ready to send troops to Ukraine. But not all agree—Romania’s prime minister has already said his country won’t participate. Hungary, obviously, won’t either.

While this security element seems appealing at first glance, questions abound: Will these troops stand armed near the contact line, or linger in relative safety in western Ukraine as peacekeepers?

Sending a military contingent just for show, in some token form, just to send them and say, ‘Look, we’re ensuring security in Ukraine’—that’s not a security guarantee.Alina Hrytsenko, Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science, expert at the Research Solutions analytical network

There’s also uncertainty about numbers. For example, Zelenskyy cited a need for 200,000 peacekeepers in January, then 100,000 in February. Europe, however, likely won’t offer that many. The Guardian, citing sources, says a European-led security force might number “several tens of thousands” or even fewer.

Hrytsenko believes that for Europeans, no matter how real the Russian threat, keeping sufficient troops at their own borders will always trump sending them to Ukraine.

The status of peacekeepers should not be overstated either, journalist and commentator Vitaliy Portnikov told hromadske. He recalled the Srebrenica tragedy in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where Serbian forces killed over 8,000 Muslim men and boys in 1995 while Dutch NATO peacekeepers stood by, simply stepping aside from their positions.

NATO comes with questions too

Ukraine still banks on NATO membership as its primary security guarantee. Zelenskyy even said he would resign in exchange for Ukraine’s entry into the alliance.

But recent weeks have shown the United States will not allow it. Echoing Russian propaganda, Trump claims talks of Ukraine joining NATO provoked Russia’s war.

Portnikov notes he until recently saw NATO membership as a major security guarantee, since Russia might fear clashing with a nuclear bloc, making war with Ukraine riskier. Now, his view has shifted.

“When we consider the U.S. distancing itself from a potential war in Europe, there are no absolute security guarantees—not for Ukraine, nor for our neighbors. Even in the Baltic states or Poland, they can’t be 100% sure the United States would intervene if Russia attacked their territory,” Portnikov said.

Even hypothetical NATO membership does not ensure allies would respond to a repeat Russian attack. The North Atlantic Treaty states “an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies,” but collective defense decisions “are made by consensus, after discussion and consultation among member countries.”

Each country retains the choice to decide its response individually… Even if Russia attacks a NATO member, there’s no guarantee today, judging by the Trump administration’s stance, that the U.S. would unequivocally step in and rally allies for a consensus response to that aggression.Alina Hrytsenko, Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science, expert at the Research Solutions analytical network

For Ukraine today, Hrytsenko sees a more realistic path in bolstering defense ties with countries it already has bilateral deals with and joining new mini-alliances, like the informal regional alliance of France, Germany, and PolandWeimar Triangle. Alongside other strong European nations, Ukraine could expand cooperation, such as in military training.

“We can actually teach them a lot as a country with armed forces hardened by real war. That could be our alternative,” Hrytsenko says.

What about nukes?

““Give us back our nuclear weapons,” Ukraine’s president said in early February as an alternative to NATO membership.

It’s not just Zelenskyy’s wish. Days ago, amid the Washington spat between presidents, monobank co-founder Oleh Gorokhovsky tapped public sentiment, launching a “For Nukes” fund that raised 27 million hryvnias ($653,792) for military needs.

But this talk is unlikely to reflect reality. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, commenting on Zelenskyy’s statement, said: “I don’t think that’s a realistic demand to have.  We don’t – we need less nuclear-armed countries, not more.  Nor do I think that solves their problem as they view it.”

Portnikov notes nuclear powers will do everything to prevent anyone from regaining nuclear capability and joining the nuclear club.

“Imagine Ukraine facing economic sanctions from the United States, Russia, China, and EU countries all at once, like Iran when it developed nuclear weapons,” he says.

Slightly more plausible is a “nuclear umbrella”—where a nuclear club member guarantees protection to a non-nuclear state.

Hrytsenko suggests France could theoretically provide Ukraine with a “nuclear umbrella,” which “could be one of the security guarantees.” But no public talks on this exist now.

Through Russia’s whims

Beyond allies’ lack of political will, another hurdle to reliable security guarantees for Ukraine is negotiating a peace deal with Russia itself. The U.S. stance is that terms must be approved by both Ukraine and Russia for them to hold.

Any security guarantees will be a bargaining chip with the Russian side. They have to agree to something, and it has to be appropriately included in a potential deal—if one is reached and signed.Alina Hrytsenko, Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science, expert at the Research Solutions analytical network

Here’s the rub: after every statement on potential future guarantee conditions, Russia declares it won’t allow it.

Take the peacekeeping contingent. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called NATO troops in Ukraine “unacceptable” for Russia, while his deputy dubbed it an “escalatory step.”

Yet the United States believes a deal is possible. National Security Adviser Mike Waltz says Moscow would have to accept European security guarantees for Ukraine for a peace deal, while Kyiv would concede territory.

“It’s hard for me to imagine the Russian side agreeing to a peacekeeping contingent,” Hrytsenko says.

She argues that if it’s a large force, not just one or two thousand, it’d be “a human shield Putin would have to destroy if he wanted to keep fighting.” So, he’d likely reject that condition outright.

The same is true for NATO membership. Russia repeatedly says it won’t permit it. More likely, Russia will demand Ukraine enshrine neutral status in its Constitution before hostilities end.

“And if that’s not done, Russian leadership will continue military action, further destroying Ukrainian infrastructure, as we understand from their intent,” Portnikov says.

Russians will haggle over their terms now. Hrytsenko believes the final deal hinges on how deftly the U.S. delegation “can diplomatically show flexibility to curb Russian appetites.”

So what will save Ukraine?

All experts hromadske spoke with agree no potential future security guarantee condition can fully protect Ukraine from another Russian attack.

The Budapest Memorandum’s lesson is that even nuclear powers’ promises can be broken, says former Foreign Minister Volodymyr Ohryzko.

The best security guarantee is a strong, modern, well-armed Ukrainian army and allies committed to helping in case of aggression. This could best be realized through Ukraine’s full NATO membership or creating another military-political structure in Europe to provide all necessary protection forms for European nations.  Volodymyr Ohryzko, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine from December 2007 to March 2009

Hrytsenko notes Russia’s regime forces Ukraine to stay war-ready, with the likelihood of another conflict in 50 or 100 years ever-present.

“Russia will always be a threat to us,” she says.Even seemingly solid guarantees, she adds, “still leave room for them to be breached somewhere.”

Enforcing these guarantees depends on many factors, including external ones—like the state of international relations at the moment they are needed—and internal ones, like the political will of elites in guarantor countries.Alina Hrytsenko, Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science, expert at the Research Solutions analytical network

Portnikov lists four conditions to shield Ukraine from another Russian attack. First, a strong, modern Ukrainian army whose mere existence shows an aggressor would face heavy losses.

Second, Ukraine needs serious preparation for any new invasion—reliable fortifications and defenses, not like before February 2022, he says.

Third, he cites Russia’s economic exhaustion, leaving it unable to sustain its military-industrial complex, develop its army, or prepare for aggression.

“If President Trump negotiates special economic ties with Russia, this falls apart, because U.S. policy would instead create new opportunities for Russia to bolster aggressive plans—not just against Ukraine, but other European countries too,” the commentator says.

His final condition: “fighting for Russia’s democratization.” Russia needs a government “ready to address Ukraine’s future statehood through political and economic means.”

We’ll never convince Russians that Ukrainians are a distinct people and Ukraine isn’t Russian territory… We need those leading Russia to believe they can resolve the ‘Ukrainian question’ not through military attack, but through political destabilization and economic pressure, as before 2014. In that scenario, Ukraine’s state has a chance to survive, secure itself, build strong economic potential, and unite society.Vitaliy Portnikov, Ukrainian publicist, writer and journalist