There is a new trendy term in the capitals of Europe and North America – „security guarantees” – a set of measures that should ensure that if the war in Ukraine stops, Russia will not reinvade the country.
Presidents and prime ministers from the two continents are struggling to develop a plan. President Volodymyr Zelensky stated on August 28 that the measures will be „put on paper next week.”
But there are significant issues, such as the fact that they rely on Russia's agreement for a ceasefire, a proposal to which the Kremlin continues to respond only with more violence and an escalation of hostilities both on the front line and in the cities of Ukraine.
Furthermore, diplomats, officials, and experts who spoke with Kyiv Independent say that there is little chance that Russia will ever accept robust security guarantees, and Ukraine's Western allies do not have the political and military resolve to implement them.
"It is widely expected that Russia will strongly oppose any security framework involving the deployment of foreign forces, especially NATO, in Ukraine," said a senior European official, speaking on condition of anonymity, to Kyiv Independent.
The Plan
The form that security guarantees will take is still under debate. One of the first ideas proposed was a multinational "reassurance force" led by France and the UK under the Coalition of Volunteers, although several other options have since been raised.
According to Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, a robust security mechanism inspired by Article 5 of NATO remains the primary guarantee under consideration, although how this would look in reality remains unclear.
A report by the Financial Times on August 26 stated that the US was prepared to support a Europe-led peacekeeping contingent in Ukraine, providing intelligence resources, air defense support, and battlefield surveillance.
Another option under discussion, according to Politico, is a 40-kilometer buffer zone supported by Europe, as an option for a ceasefire or an agreement between Ukrainian and Russian forces.
A source within the Office of the President of Ukraine told Kyiv Independent that these are just a few of the multiple different plans currently being discussed, but none of them are final.
"What will actually happen? No one knows yet," the source said.
The First Issue
Any security guarantees that effectively deter future Russian aggression would almost certainly require Western troops on the ground in Ukraine.
But there is a problem - Russia. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov once again rejected the idea of European peacekeeping troops in Ukraine on August 27, stating that Moscow has a "negative attitude" towards any such deployment.
This contradicts previous statements made by US President Donald Trump in February, claiming that Russian President Vladimir Putin "has no problem with this."
Some European capitals do not even believe that Russia would agree to measures well below the "boots on the ground" threshold.
"It is highly unlikely that Russia would agree to security guarantees that include US air defense and much broader information support," stated a senior European official to Kyiv Independent.
"These measures would strategically undermine Russia's deterrent capabilities and compromise its operational autonomy against Ukrainian forces."
In short, accepting any security guarantees would mean that Russia would have to abandon the maximalist demands for Ukraine it has consistently expressed, even throughout the ongoing peace process.
In an effort that seems to ensure that the Kremlin still has a direct line to Trump's ear while discussing security guarantees, Moscow insisted this week that any discussions on this topic with the US should take place in private.
"Undoubtedly, security guarantees are one of the key issues in the context of efforts to find a solution," Peskov said on August 27. "But we would not like to discuss this issue in public," he added.
This raises an obvious question - how can the US and Europe develop effective security guarantees if Russia does not agree to them?
The Solution
Experts and Ukrainian officials who spoke with Kyiv Independent are unanimous in their solution - Moscow should not have a say in this process and decisions should be implemented regardless of objections.
"The conclusion is that Russia will not agree to security guarantees, but Russia should not be given a veto right over these security guarantees, as Russia is the aggressor," said Kateryna Stepanenko, an analyst at the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), to Kyiv Independent.
This sentiment is echoed in Kyiv, as well as in European capitals closer geographically and historically to Russian aggression.
"Russia is an aggressor. Security guarantees are aimed against the aggressor. It makes no sense to involve Russia in any discussions about this," said Oleksandr Merezhko, a prominent parliamentarian from President Volodymyr Zelensky's party, to Kyiv Independent.
Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna told Kyiv Independent that the Kremlin should have no influence in this process, adding: "We cannot let the aggressor decide how the victim can defend itself. This would legitimize aggression and render the guarantees meaningless. The purpose of these guarantees is to deter further Russian aggression, not to give Russia a say in shaping them."
The Second Issue
Excluding Russia from discussions on security guarantees is one thing, and implementing them without Russia's permission is quite another and would risk a direct confrontation between Europe and Russia.
"Europe will not have the courage to do that," said Peter Rutland, a professor at Wesleyan University and an expert in nationalism and Russian politics, to Kyiv Independent.
Rutland's sentiment is shared by former UK Defense Attaché in Moscow, John Foreman, who told Kyiv Independent that "it is unlikely that any Western nation would promise to punish Russia if a peace agreement is violated."
Any confrontation "leading to casualties is a political liability that most nations cannot afford," added the senior European official.
However, the very idea of Ukraine's security guarantees is largely meaningless - anything truly strong enough to deter Russian aggression would need to be implemented in defiance of Moscow and risk provoking a war for which Europe is not prepared, both politically and militarily.
"In the long run, Ukraine's membership in NATO and the EU remains the strongest guarantee for its security and that of Europe in general," said Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur to Kyiv Independent.
But considering that NATO membership is currently excluded, EU membership is still far off, and Russia shows no signs of being willing to end its large-scale invasion, Ukraine faces uncertain months and possibly even years if all discussions about security guarantees end in failure.
According to Foreman, the only thing Ukraine can rely on is its own armed forces.
"I believe the greatest security guarantee is the continued support given to Ukraine and the Ukrainian army with funds, weapons, and expertise to deny Russia any military advantage and to increase the costs of a new invasion," he said.