Analysis || Putin is a master to explore fragile agreements. Therefore: the safety guarantees that allies want can play in favor of Kremlin
When Western leaders, including Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky, gathered at the White House on Monday, the promise of safety guarantees for Ukraine emerged as a hope towards the peace of a conflict that has been devastating the country for three and a half years. But Moscow plays a well -calculated game.
The US President believes that Vladimir Putin is willing to accept the security guarantee agreement, provided that this is not Article 5 or something equivalent. Therefore, Putin’s apparent assignment is apparent from Ukraine safety guarantees – but behind this partial assignment emerges a well -delineated strategy on the part of Kremlin that can leave Ukraine delivered to its own luck.
“Safety guarantees are a sophistry on the table and each has the interpretation they want. France and the United Kingdom want to put strength on the ground with American support, with the aim of facing Russia. But for Germany, Italy and Poland the idea of troops on the ground is out of the question,” Major General Agostinho Costa.
There is little clarity about the concrete details of security guarantees that European countries are willing to give, even with US support. According to Donald Trump, Putin agreed in Alaska that conflict resolution requires security guarantees, although it discards the possibility of these guarantees being given by the NATO. Steve Witkoff, an American special envoy, believes that the guarantees that are being discussed are identical to those of Article 5 of the Atlantic Alliance.
This point of the NATO Treaty, signed in 1949, establishes that an armed attack on the territory of one of the alliance members will be considered an attack on everyone if the aggression occurs in Europe or North America (this part of the clause was created to prevent the activation of the article in case of attack on colonies that several of the members, including Portugal, had on the African continent). Once the article is activated, members deliberate what the answer is needed to help the wholesale country. However, the answer is not automatic and each country decides how to contribute.
An agreement outside this treaty entails more risks to Ukraine, so Kremlin may be more willing to accept this condition. Over the course of over 70 years, NATO proved to be a stable structure that has continued to grow over the years and this is seen in Moscow as a problem. Putin can tolerate the idea of isolated guarantees in the short term because it is easier to create divisions among Western allies in the future, facilitating the ability to explore political and strategic weaknesses.
“The US says Ukraine will have a ‘very good’ protection. But without being a protection at the level of article 5, and without the presence of the United States, this protection can hardly be that good,” says Orlando Samões, an international relations expert.
At least 30 countries that are part of the “Coalition of the Holders” are involved in the negotiations of security guarantees. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has promised that the details of the deal should be “formalized on paper” in the next ten days. France and the United Kingdom, the creators of the “coalition of the wills,” prove to be in tune with the defense of Ukraine. But if suddenly a new French government decides to be against? Will London be willing to carry the burden of Ukrainian security alone? For experts, the American presence is fundamental.
“Troops on the ground may be an important measure to monitor a ceasefire, but when there is a peace agreement, the guarantees must be of another nature. From the point of view of Ukraine, security guarantees have to translate into the conditions to dissuade Russia to attack its territory in the future. European military personnel who will dissuade Russia, “defends Lieutenant General Marco Serronha.
Putin’s story in exploring fragile agreements reinforces distrust in isolated guarantees. The 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which promised security to Ukraine in exchange for nuclear weapons resignation, was ignored by Russia in the annexation of Crimea. For Kremlin, agreements without the weight of the NATO are invitations to future provocations, such as raids on disputed territories or cybers.
If the established guarantees provided are based on Article 5 and the idea that the answer will not be automatic and that each member may contribute as to find better, then Kremlin may be tempted to test the strength of these guarantees at a time of vulnerability. A Ukraine security guarantee agreement may not survive political changes on the continent and Kremlin knows it. For years, Russia has sponsored in the shadows the rise of extremist parties, such as Marine Le Pen’s National Front, or the alternative to Germany (AFD), to destabilize European unity, weakening a commitment to Ukraine. It is dividing to conquer.
The vulnerability of isolated guarantees lies in their dependence on the political will of each country. “Such guarantees similar to article 5, to be valid, must be signed in a legal role,” says Diana Soller, an international relations expert. Without a ratified treaty, such as the one that requires approval for two thirds of the US Senate, any commitment can be reversed by future US administrations. Trump, for example, assured Fox News that he will not send American troops to the ground (although the day before this interview has not discarded him), limiting support for air power and information. “The US will be in the rear,” Soller explains, leaving Europe with the weight of leading the defense of Ukraine, but the cohesion needed to be uncertain.
The rise of extremist movements in Europe supported by Moscow amplifies this fragility. Parties such as the National Front or AFD have questioned sanctions to Russia and military involvement in Ukraine, aligning itself, even indirectly, with the Kremlin narrative. Reports of the 2024 European Commission point out that Russia finances these groups to sow discord, weakening the unity of the “coalition of the disposites.” If a populist government, such as Marine Le Pen, in France, assuming power, commitment to guarantees can be crumbled. “A safety guarantee agreement in Ukraine requires legal guarantees and this implies the United States and Europe,” says Diana Soller.
The proposal for a trilateral meeting between Trump, Zelensky and Putin, possibly in Geneva, can be a step towards formalizing guarantees, but distrust of Russian intentions remains. Putin tolera fragile agreements because he knows he can test them in the future, especially in times of political crisis in the West. The reluctance of countries such as Germany, Italy and Poland to send troops and American hesitation to take a leadership role can create a void that Kremlin can explore. “Russia wants a subordinate Ukraine – or, at the very least, with limited sovereignty and armed forces,” says Marco Serronha, suggesting that isolated guarantees do not change the strategic calculation of Moscow.
For Zelensky, the formalization of guarantees in the coming days is crucial, but the challenge is to ensure that they are more than words on paper. Without the institutional weight of the NATO, any agreement depends on the cohesion between allies, something that European polarization and American ambiguity call into question and this plays in favor of Kremlin. By tolerating isolated agreements, Putin bets on the allied disunity and political instability of Europe to empty the security guarantees of any practical meaning. The West now faces the challenge of turning rhetoric into concrete protection or risks delivering Putin a strategic victory disguised as diplomacy.
“The narrative that Russia is in a clear advantage of reaching the negotiation table does not correspond to reality. Russia has already realized that, from a military point of view, it cannot achieve its strategic goals. As such, it will try to reach them in the diplomatic field. Any guarantee of security proposed by Americans and accepted by Russia should be a source of distrust,” warns Lieutenant General Marco Serronha.
