The United States has offered, which is not even (yet) NATO member, similar to those enjoyed by the countries of the Atlantic Alliance according to article 5 of its foundational treaty, where it is established that an aggression to one of them would be considered an attack on the rest. A formula that, as indicated by the special American envoy to Russia, Steve Witkoff, could accept Vladimir Putin in the frame veto about foreign policy that must decide from kyiv.
As with the analyst and also director of the Finnish consultant Nordic West Office, Charly Salonius-Pasternak, who has been especially critical of the US proposal, noting that accepting said approach means “bite the hook” that Moscow would have tended. In your opinion, it does not correspond to the Kremlin to issue which defense commitments can assume Ukraine, or who should endorse them. “Putin’s approval is not needed, unless one believes in that story that Russia has the right to decide the policy of its neighbors, including Finland,” he said in an interview with Finland Public RadioTelevision stressing that the American position weakens not only kyiv’s sovereignty, but the credibility of European security architecture as a whole.
The controversy is explained because Russia and the West understand the concept of security guarantees very differently. While for Western allies they mean an operational commitment – that is, to respond militarily in case of a new Russian aggression – for Moscow, it is enough to write a document that does not imply display or concrete actions. This difference makes it implausible to think, as the international politics professor Hanna Smith, that Kremlin could accept the presence of US soldiers in Ukrainian territory: “I would like to see that role in which Russians approve the presence of US soldiers in Ukraine.”
Smith warns that Moscow has already signed in the past other commitments that in the eyes of the West seemed acceptable, but that they actually allowed him to expand his areas of influence. In his opinion, the Kremlin can repeat the maneuver: starting by demanding a reduced territory and, once accepted, advance step by step towards a broader control.
kyiv demands clear commitments
For kyiv, the debate is not abstract. Moscow conditions any high fire to the transfer of territories, while Zelenski warns that a signed document will not be enough if there are no troops to defend the country. “The promise that ‘Yes, we will go in your help when the time comes’ it will not be enough for the Ukrainians,” recalls Salonius-Pasternak.
This demand for tangible commitments also reaches European partners: accepting a vague formula would question their credibility and would force newly arrived countries to NATO, as Finland, to demonstrate that they are not left out of a common force.
The debate on the guarantees was addressed at the Volodimir Zelenski meeting with Donald Trump and other European leaders, held on Monday in Washington. A meeting that was marked by the unknown about what was treated at the meeting between the US and Russia of Alaska. The lack of transparency concerns the allies and, according to Professor Hanna Smith, gives Kremlin advantage because it limits the preparation of a western response. “When there is little time the basic work is not done properly,” he warned.
