US Security Guarantee and Nato Off Table for Ukraine Peace
Is a EU Security Guarantee Credible Enough for Ukraine without the US?
During a recent meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group in Brussels, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stated that Ukraine would not be joining NATO, a position that has sparked concern among European allies. With the Trump administration has exhibited skepticism towards Ukrainian NATO membership. It should be noted that even the Biden adminstration and Germany have been skeptical of Ukrainian membership in NATO. President Zelensky has shifted focus towards securing alternative security guarantees from Europe after disaster of a meeting in the US with Trump.
However, the feasibility of European countries providing adequate troop deployments remains questionable. Policymakers are exploring ways to enhance Ukraine’s deterrent capabilities rather than relying solely on NATO membership or troop deployments.
The troop deployments would need to be about 40,000 and ideally 200,000 troops. This is because the size of border between Ukraine and Russia and not to mention the border with Belarus. As you can see the EU militaries simply cannot field such a force within Ukraine without weakening their own national deterence against Russia. Thus, it is not suprising that only the UK and France have committed so far with the hopes of getting the US on board.
It should also be noted that the goals to end the war are different between Ukraine and the US plus the EU. For the US and most EU countries the realistic end to the war was always when both parties were exhausted and ready to negotiate. Where the line between Russia and Ukraine is settle would be decided on where the military lines ended after some give and take between the two parties. Ideally, everyone would hope that Ukraine would be able to advance and take back its territory, b ut not at the cost of a wider war with Russia. For Ukraine the goal is always to get back its territory.
Key Points
US Position on NATO Membership: Hegseth’s comments reflect a long-standing U.S. skepticism towards Ukraine joining NATO.
Security Guarantees Needed: Instead of NATO membership, Ukraine is seeking equivalent security guarantees from Western allies, specifically Europe.
Troop Deployment Challenges: European countries are hesitant to commit troops without a US backstop, as existing military capabilities may be insufficient to deter Russia effectively. As mentioned earlier about 40,000 to 200,000 troops may be needed.
Focus on Deterrent Capabilities: Strengthening Ukraine’s military through arms and training is viewed as a more viable solution than paper guarantees. The Ukrainian military is currently about 1 million troops.
Need for Conflict Resolution: Addressing the underlying causes of the conflict is essential to prevent future wars in Ukraine and similar regions.
Our View of the Situation
Aside from the ugly optics during the meeting of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky with Donald Trump and Vance, let’s examine the logic behind Trump’s moves. We can also include the poor tactics of stopping military aid and intelligence to help the Ukrainian military target Russian attacks. Plus the recent voting behaivor of the US at the UN siding with Russia and its friends.
This has led to panic in Europe that sees this as a transatlantic rift between the US and Europe. The news is filled with news on the reliability of the US as a security partner. For Trump, the Europeans are divided and he sees them as not having contributed enough to Ukraine especially early on. Thus, not having chips on the table and not speaking with one voice, Trump went over their heads and decided to deal directly with Russia to settle the war in Ukraine as quickly as possible.
The position of Trump is that Russia could not take Ukraine and failed. Thus, the best time to negotiate an end to the war is now with Vladimir Putin. This is unpopular in Russia and Putin needs a face saving way out. The view of the Trump administration is that Russia is not capable of invading Europe. In short the NATO alliance and economic power of Europe is enough to deter Russia. I
His main focus is containment and deterence of China. Therefore, the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East were a distraction from moving more troops and military assets to Asia. This is the real purpose of ending the conflicts.
Putting boots on the ground in Ukraine would go against that goal. There is also the risk that Ukraine might instigate a future conflict with Russia drawing in the US into direct conflict with Russia. Trump is strongly against any risk that could start a nuclear war.
China recently announced an increased of defense spending of 7%. The window of opportunity of China to attack Taiwan is closing and this needs to occur within the next few years. Thus, we are not suprised of the moves the US is in a hurry to move assets in Asia. This includes a trade war with China as well as a possible deal with China to reduce tension. Trump is using all this as a negotiation tool to see if a deal with Xi of China is possible. In addition, Trump and his adminsitration seeks closer Russian relations to split the China-Russian partnership. This maybe fantasy or might weaken the link between these two powers a bit. Only time will tell.
In addition to the weakening the China-Russian partnership, there may be other geopolitical reasons. Recently, Russia made a statment that it will work with Trump towards preventing Iran from getting the nuclear weapons.
