Signals from the European Political Community summit in Moldova, after the NATO defense ministers' meeting in Oslo, comments by German Chancellor Scholz and US Secretary of State Blinken, and especially reactions to all this from the Kremlin, indicate that the idea of security guarantees for Ukraine's self-defense is becoming crucial. However, this is hardly positive for Ukraine's long-term interests. After all, where there are bilateral or multilateral security guarantees, there is less room for Ukraine's membership in NATO. No matter who or what says otherwise.
Let's see why the idea of so-called security guarantees for Ukraine is not a panacea.
"Security guarantees for Ukraine are not about peace, but about war"
First, security guarantees for Ukraine are not about peace, but about war. In the conceptual form in which they are currently being discussed, the guarantees relate to the ability of our state to withstand a much stronger enemy in terms of resources on its own. The key here is to do it on our own, even with some material assistance from our allies. Thus, we are talking exclusively about international assistance to Ukraine in exercising its right to self-defense in accordance with the UN Charter. And nothing more.
Second, such guarantees are not about preventing new aggression, but about inviting it. An effective deterrence strategy can only be implemented through collective efforts, not alone. Even if Ukraine is the most capable, militarily developed and experienced on the battlefield, it will still be subject to armed encroachment by expansionist and revanchist Russia. Only our country's membership in the North Atlantic Alliance will be able to discourage the Kremlin from new adventures. This is an axiom proven by years of confrontation. Moreover, the regime of better preparation for the upcoming war is not the best incentive for foreign investment and the development of a qualitatively new economy in line with the standards of the European Union.
"Israel's experience is not an option for Ukraine. Our countries are in different geographical conditions and terrains, as well as in different weight categories of both our countries and our enemies. Scaling up Israel in Ukraine in terms of security will not work and is hardly necessary. The experience of the Middle East conflict, on the contrary, confirms that the confrontation can last for decades"
Third, Israel's experience is not an option for Ukraine. Our countries are in different geographical conditions and terrains, as well as in different weight categories of both our countries and our enemies. Scaling up Israel in Ukraine in terms of security will not work and is hardly necessary. The experience of the Middle East conflict, on the contrary, confirms that the confrontation can last for decades. But is it necessary in Eastern Europe? Ukraine's membership in NATO can resolve in one step what has not been resolved for half a century in the Middle East.
Fourth, security guarantees for Ukraine are expensive both economically and politically. It has been proven that collective defense is not only more effective but also more cost-effective. The security guarantees for Ukraine under discussion will involve long-term and quite tangible financial investments. And not only for Washington, but also for all other Western alliance countries. And where there are significant costs, there must be and always remain the appropriate political will, which is not a constant in a democratic debate. And for Russia, it would also create a new battlefield to undermine internal stability in the states that have pledged to support Ukraine. In addition, such guarantees would also require approval at the level of national parliaments of the guarantor countries, which in its symbolic and semantic content would actually turn into a vote for/against Ukraine in NATO.
"Ukraine's membership in NATO is necessary for both Ukraine and the Alliance, and, paradoxically, for Russia. A strong and experienced Ukraine will be an important asset to the Alliance and a guarantee of effective defense against open Russian aggression. The Kremlin will have to come to terms with the new circumstances and stop looking for adventures in Eastern Europe"
Fifth, Ukraine's membership in NATO is necessary for both Ukraine and the Alliance, and, paradoxically, for Russia. A strong and experienced Ukraine will be an important asset to the Alliance and a guarantee of effective defense against open Russian aggression. The Kremlin will have to come to terms with the new circumstances and stop looking for adventures in Eastern Europe, which will become a factor of stability, not destabilization or escalation. Russia's large-scale invasion of Ukraine proved that the last thing the Kremlin wants is an open war with NATO. Ukraine's Euro-Atlantic success will also stimulate pro-Western processes in Belarus and the South Caucasus.
Whatever the final outcome, the NATO Summit in Vilnius is already doomed to be historic. For Ukraine, it can either be a return to Budapest-1994 (with its security assurances), or a stagnation at Bucharest-2008 (with a photocopy of beautiful but empty statements about "open doors"), or a leap to Washington-1949 (especially since next year's NATO anniversary summit will be held in Washington). Ensuring the right decision is the task of the head of state, who must attend the NATO summit in Vilnius.
"No bilateral or multilateral security guarantees for Ukraine will guarantee sustainable peace, security, and stability and will not take away the Kremlin's neo-imperial appetites, but will be an eternal irritant for Russia"
In conclusion, no bilateral or multilateral security guarantees for Ukraine will guarantee sustainable peace, security, and stability and will not discourage the Kremlin's neo-imperial appetites, but will instead be an eternal irritant for Russia. They may work in the short term as a mechanism for strengthening Ukraine's military capabilities at the operational level, but at the strategic level, it should be about the path to NATO membership. The story of guarantees should not repeat the experience of the Eastern Partnership, which, as we know, did not include an invitation to the EU. Therefore, any agreements on security guarantees have the right to exist only if they guarantee Ukraine's membership in NATO. After all, only NATO membership is a true guarantee of security for our country, its allies, and the entire European continent.
In the end, only when Ukraine becomes a member of the Alliance can we talk about our final victory.
About the author: Kostiantyn Yelisieiev, Ukrainian diplomat, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Ukraine.
The editors do not always share the views expressed by the authors of the blogs.