Not Budapest 2.0: what's really behind U.S. security guarantees for Ukraine?

In particular, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the U.S. has "made significant progress" in negotiations regarding Ukraine, but warned that "there is still a long way ahead".

Currently, statements about the U.S. readiness to provide Ukraine with military security guarantees in case of a new attack by the occupying country have sparked a wave of skepticism in Ukrainian society: are we talking about real commitments, or about yet another political formula without an enforcement mechanism. However, I am convinced: this time we are talking not about an "intention", but about a real deterrence model that Washington has already applied in other regions of the world.

The fundamental difference of the current U.S. proposals lies in a clearly defined military component. 

"We are talking not only about intelligence sharing, training, or military-technical assistance — as European politicians previously voiced — but about guarantees confirmed by the nuclear status of the United States."

That is why I reject comparisons with the Budapest Memorandum. Back then, Ukraine received political assurances without an enforcement mechanism. Instead, now the U.S. is proposing a model that is essentially an analogue of NATO's Article Five, but outside formal accession to the Alliance. 

Special attention should be paid to the role of Europe, which, in my opinion, is not ready for direct military confrontation with Russia. As an example, the statements of the head of EU diplomacy Kaja Kallas, where security guarantees for Ukraine were reduced to three points: military aid, training of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, and support for the Ukrainian defense industry.

This is important, but these are not security guarantees. Such a position only emphasizes Europe's unwillingness to take on real risks.

I also draw attention to the double standards of certain European countries. In particular, France publicly declares support for Ukraine, but at the same time continues purchases of Russian energy resources and refuses to transfer frozen Russian assets to Ukraine. This essentially means financing the active phase of the war.

Moreover, French President Emmanuel Macron recently stated that Europe must find a way to directly interact with the Russian dictator. In his opinion, "either lasting peace will be achieved" during the current negotiations led by the U.S., "or we will find ways for Europeans to re-enter dialogue with Russia — in a transparent form and in cooperation with Ukraine".

In turn, the Kremlin stated that the Russian dictator is ready to "conduct dialogue" with French President Emmanuel Macron. According to the Russian dictator's press secretary, the latter also expressed readiness to conduct dialogue with Macron. "Therefore, if there is mutual political will, this can only be assessed positively", Peskov noted. 

All this creates a sense of double standards in the EU's position regarding the continuation of the war in Ukraine. 

"On one hand, exclusively political statements about supporting our country. On the other hand — the extensive nature of economic cooperation with the occupying country in the moment of purchasing energy resources."

Against this background, the United States has taken a significantly tougher position. Washington is trying to force Europe to jointly provide Ukraine with military guarantees within NATO, but faces resistance from a number of European countries.

It is precisely the unwillingness of European partners to see Ukraine in NATO that has become the reason for seeking an alternative security model. The U.S. understands: Ukraine's formal accession to the Alliance may be blocked, but security guarantees can still be provided — directly.

I will draw a parallel with South Korea. The DPRK possesses nuclear weapons, but does not dare to launch a full-scale aggression. The reason — the status of the Republic of Korea as a strategic partner of the U.S., even without formal NATO membership.

The key element of this model — a demarcation zone where heavy weapons are absent on both sides. The security of this zone is ensured not by the presence of American troops, but by the U.S. nuclear potential as a deterrence factor.

"This is exactly the scheme now being proposed for Ukraine: not peacekeepers on the front line, but legally enshrined guarantees that make new aggression too risky for the Kremlin."

I also draw attention to the indirect signals that the occupying country is already receiving. In particular, the intensification of strikes on the shadow fleet, operations against the submarine fleet and strategic aviation. These actions are an element of military pressure from the U.S. specifically, even if formally they look like Ukraine's initiative. The Kremlin perfectly understands "under what flag" such operations are conducted.

A separate block in the proposals being discussed — is the creation of free economic zones — particularly in areas of strategic resources and around the Zaporizhzhia NPP.

The principle is simple: absence of military presence and economic interest of both sides. American business involved in such projects becomes an additional security guarantee: neither side is interested in striking territories where it earns money. 

The media already has a U.S. proposal regarding control over the ZNPP: to create a demarcation zone around this station. After all, according to the Russian dictator's decree, the entire Zaporizhzhia region is included in the composition of the Russian Federation. High-ranking officials from the Kremlin have already repeatedly expressed themselves regarding the impossibility of deploying foreign military contingents on the territory of Ukraine. And regarding the ZNPP, we are talking about the fact that a foreign contingent that will be responsible for security issues of the ZNPP's functioning, even if we are talking about private military companies, will be deployed precisely on territory that the Russian dictator included in the composition of the occupying country. And most importantly, the U.S. is essentially putting a period on the moment of territorial encroachments by the occupiers on all territories of the Zaporizhzhia region.

With the U.S., the situation is quite clear. They are not interested in the further existence of Russia in the form it currently has. Actually, that is why they are offering guarantees to Ukraine for 10 years. Thus, the U.S. makes it clear that Ukraine has historical prospects for the return of temporarily occupied territories. During this time, much can change in Russia due to physiological processes. In particular, the death of the Russian dictator.

"Thus, the current U.S. proposals — are not declarations and not "words in the wind", but an attempt to impose a new security architecture, where Ukraine receives real deterrence guarantees, even without formal accession to NATO."

And the main resistance to this model comes not from Moscow, but from Europe — which wants to remain in the comfort zone, shifting the main risks of war onto Ukraine.

Accordingly, now creating a precedent of confrontation along the European Union — United States line — is precisely playing into the hands of the occupying country. The EU is trying to increase its subjectivity in the issue of involvement in the negotiation process, arguing its position with the fact that the war is taking place on the territory of the European continent.

At the same time, the leaders of European countries primarily think about their own interests, considering that the continuation of the war in Ukraine gives the European Union the opportunity to prevent a scenario of direct confrontation with Moscow.

Specially for Espreso

About the author. Dmytro Sniehyriov, military expert, co-chair of the NGO Prava Sprava.

The editorial board does not always share the opinions expressed by blog authors.