The negotiations around but they do it on land full of mines. One of the most delicate issues – and still without a clear solution – is the security guarantees that should protect kyiv once any pact with Moscow is signed. The key question remains unanswered: who and how will ensure that Russia does not attack again, How happened after the Minsk agreements of 2015?
In the conversations in which they participate United States, Ukraine and several European countries, This point has become the main source of friction. It is not only a question of defining which States would assume that commitment, but of deciding whether Ukrainian security would be based solely on political promises or if it would imply the real presence of foreign troops on the ground. AND that’s where Russia has
Moscow has already repeatedly warned that will not accept Western soldiers on Ukrainian territory. Now, according to several analysts, the Kremlin is redoubling verbal pressure to block any guarantee formula that it considers “significant” or credible from a military point of view.
Expertos del Institute for the Study of War (ISW) have analyzed two recent statements of Russian officials who fit into this context. In his opinion, these are not simple rhetorical comments, but calculated messages designed to delegitimize any security commitment that goes beyond paper.
The pattern is clear: Russia claims not to want a conflict with Europe, but immediately introduces the threat of a forceful response if Western countries cross certain lines. The objective, according to the ISW, would be to precondition the framework of any agreement and limit it to vague guarantees, without real deterrence mechanisms.
The first of these statements corresponds to the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov. In a public speech on December 10, Lavrov resorted to a formula that, in appearance, seeks to reduce tension. He assured that Russia has no intention of declaring war on Europe and that it does not even contemplate that scenario.
However, the message changes tone immediately afterwards. The head of Russian diplomacy added that Moscow is prepared to respond to any “hostile measures”, explicitly citing two assumptions: the deployment of European troops in Ukraine and the confiscation of Russian assets abroad.
For ISW analysts, this combination of messages is not coincidental. By presenting an eventual war as a defensive reaction, The Kremlin would be laying the narrative foundations to justify a future escalation. In other words, if European forces set foot on Ukrainian soil, Moscow could present any attack as a forced response, just as it has already justified the invasion of Ukraine.
Even more explicit threats
The second message analyzed goes one step further. Alexey Chepa, deputy and member of the International Affairs Committee of the Russian Duma, used a much more aggressive tone in statements to the Russian digital media lenta.ru. In them he spoke openly about the “annihilation” of European troops that could be deployed in Ukraine as part of a security mechanism.
These types of statements, even if they come from figures lower in rank than Lavrov, reinforce the idea that In Moscow there is a broad consensus against any Western military presence in Ukraine after the war. This is not just a position of the Executive, but rather a transversal message addressed to both governments and European public opinions.
The Zelensky factor and the elections
In parallel, the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, has directly linked security guarantees to another sensitive issue: the holding of elections in Ukraine. The country’s legislation prohibits elections in times of war, a rule similar to that in other European states, and organizing elections in the middle of a conflict would be extremely complex.
After pressure from Washington, Zelensky expressed his willingness on December 10 to consider this step. But he set a clear condition: that the United States and Europe offer solid guarantees against future Russian aggression. Without them, kyiv maintains, any internal political process would be exposed to a new attack.
The clash of positions exposes the core of the problem. For Ukraine, without real guarantees there is no lasting peace. For Russia, those same guarantees are unacceptable if they imply an armed Western presence. Between both extremes, Europe and the United States are looking for a formula that avoids a new war without provoking another. For now, that balance remains to be found.
