Andreas Umland
At the end of the day, Western promises of support for Ukraine cannot replace a strong Ukrainian military as an effective deterrent to Russia.
Since spring 2025, the term “security guarantee” has become a buzzword in international debates about future Western support for Ukraine. Following the conclusion of a ceasefire, ensuring Ukraine’s security is to be a central component of international engagement with the embattled country. However, the term is currently often used in a way that leaves important political and strategic challenges to the implementation of these guarantees unaddressed.
In general, the term “security guarantees” can be misleading: a complete security guarantee is an unattainable illusion, not only for Ukraine but also for every other nation. Expert discussions distinguish between guarantees and (weaker) security commitments, as well as between positive and negative guarantees. As a rule, a positive security guarantee—the type of promise Ukraine is seeking—implies strong commitments on the part of the guarantor to protect the beneficiary.
The different definitions and interpretations of security guarantees, as well as the ambiguities and contradictions implicit in their planning and implementation, pose a problem. Open questions must be clearly identified at the outset. Transparency can help move from purely discursive progress on Kyiv’s future defense needs to a real improvement in Ukraine’s security situation.
There is a risk that the promise that the term “security guarantees” seems to offer will ultimately not be kept. While security guarantees were the subject of intense debate in Europe and beyond in 2025, the specific future challenges they pose remain unclear. Inconsistent implementation of loudly proclaimed support and defense commitments would not only be dangerous for Ukraine but also undermine the already shaken European security order and the rules-based international system.
No comments:
Post a Comment