Shaky Guarantees

The debate over “security guarantees” for Ukraine has shifted the spotlight from lofty summit declarations to the harder terrain of military commitments. Within days of the Alaska summit, Western leaders gathered in Washington to wrestle with the practicalities of protecting Kyiv without crossing their own red lines. What emerged is a blueprint that is ambitious in rhetoric, but still riddled with contradictions.

The clearest of these contradictions lies in the very nature of the guarantees being promised. NATO membership, the most credible shield, remains off the table for now. Instead, a coalition of the willing ~ led by European powers – has been tasked with devising arrangements that fall short of formal accession but still reassure Ukraine. This halfway house reflects a desire to deter Russia without triggering the obligations of collective defence. President Donald Trump has sought to thread that needle by ruling out American boots on the ground, while leaving open the prospect of US airpower as a backstop. That position shields him from domestic political blowback while preserving Washington’s role as indispensable arbiter.

Advertisement

Yet, it also raises the question of whether a security guarantee that stops at the air can ever be decisive. Deterrence requires credibility, and credibility often requires soldiers in harm’s way. It is here that European leaders have stepped forward. Figures like British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron have signalled a willingness to contemplate European deployments, at least in limited forms. That means there may well be Western boots on the ground in Ukraine, even if they are not American. Such a division of labour ~ European risks underwritten by US airpower – offers a pragmatic compromise, but also threatens to sharpen transatlantic tensions.

The burden of ground combat would fall on Europe, while the ultimate military enabler, American air cover, could remain subject to political calculation in Washington. This arrangement underscores the fragile balance that the West is attempting to strike. Too little commitment, and Russia may calculate that its aggression can continue with impunity. Too much commitment, and the spectre of direct confrontation between nuclear powers becomes unavoidable. The coalition is thus walking a narrow line, trying to project firmness while avoiding escalation. But history shows that adversaries are quick to exploit ambiguity. That gap between rhetoric and reality is becoming more visible with each summit.

The longer it persists, the more Moscow will test the limits of Western patience and resolve. Ukraine, for its part, remains caught in the gap between words and enforceable guarantees. Each new formula raises hopes yet stops short of binding commitments. As long as the West hesitates to anchor its promises in indisputable military presence, security guarantees risk remaining aspirational rather than operational. The coalition may be broad, but without clear anchors, its deterrent power is less than the sum of its parts.