What security guarantee models could work for Ukraine and what needs to be considered
One of Ukraine's key security questions is how to deter Putin from launching a new attack in the event that a ceasefire agreement is reached.
In current academic and political discourse, various options and models of security guarantees for Ukraine are being discussed that could prevent the Russian aggressor from launching another invasion.
Read more about the main models most frequently discussed by politicians and international relations experts in the column by Oleksandr Merezhko, the chair of Ukraine's parliament committee on foreign affairs – Guaranteeing lasting peace: what Ukraine can learn from other countries' security experience.
According to the author, the West German model implies that Ukraine becomes a NATO member, but Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty applies only to the parts of Ukraine not occupied by Russia.
Merezhko recalls that Henry Kissinger was one of the proponents of this model. The American statesman supported a NATO membership for a well-armed Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine giving up on reclaiming occupied territories by military means. This approach aligns with his broader foreign policy philosophy of maintaining a balance of power to preserve peace in Europe.
At the same time, the Biden administration has not supported Ukraine's NATO membership, fearing that it could lead to a direct conflict between Russia and the Alliance.
"The new American administration also currently opposes such a possibility," Merezhko notes.
He also mentions that some politicians and experts refer to the Norwegian model, which involves a country joining NATO but without allowing NATO bases on its territory.
The Korean model has also been discussed within US expert circles.
However, Merezhko highlights the problems with this approach: the long front line in Ukraine compared to the Korean Peninsula, and the fact that no clear guarantor countries for Ukraine have been defined.
"The main issue with this model is that Putin has absolutely no interest in peace and prosperity for Ukraine in the way South Korea has developed. His goal is to destroy Ukrainian statehood," the MP emphasises.
He also writes about the Israeli security model, which involves Ukraine strengthening its defensive and offensive capabilities without NATO membership to a level that creates a real deterrent against any future Russian attacks.
However, experts who propose the Israeli model often forget that Israel is essentially a nuclear power, which on its own serves as a strong deterrent. Although Israel does not officially confirm or deny having nuclear weapons, its capabilities are widely assumed.
According to Merezhko, one of the promising security models for Ukraine could be a European model, involving fast-tracked EU membership, which includes a shared security and defense policy. This could lay the groundwork for a future autonomous European security architecture.
Merezhko also notes that some Ukrainian politicians argue that nuclear armament could be a security guarantee under the threat of renewed Russian aggression. However, the current nuclear powers are strongly opposed to breaking the non-proliferation regime, and there is a broad consensus against the emergence of another nuclear state.
At the same time, this possibility cannot be entirely ruled out. According to The Economist, at least theoretically, Donald Trump’s future options might include returning nuclear weapons to Ukraine.
"But the most important issue today, in terms of deterring Putin," Merezhko concludes, "is the unity and determination of the West as a whole – because that is precisely what Putin fears most."