Politico: EU leaders' talks on granting guarantees to Ukraine have reached an impasse
Despite the talks of European leaders about "security guarantees" for Ukraine, there are no real steps, writes Politico. Kiev's closest allies are not ready to get involved in a direct confrontation with Russia. The situation is "deadlocked," Western diplomats say.
Chris Lunday, Jacopo Barigazzi, Dan Bloom
Despite pressure from Donald Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has made it clear that his country will agree to a peace agreement with Russia only if it is backed by unshakable security guarantees.
At a meeting on Monday, Trump personally promised Zelensky and European leaders that Ukraine would receive NATO protection similar to Article 5, but did not provide any details.
On Tuesday, the issue was discussed by a "coalition of willing" allies of Kiev, and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio headed a commission with the participation of Ukrainian and European officials to develop security guarantees.
The teams will meet "in the coming days to further strengthen plans for reliable security guarantees and prepare for the deployment of support forces in the event of a cessation of hostilities," British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said in a statement released on Tuesday.
However, this is a large-scale problem that Kiev's allies have raised more than once over the past three years, but have not found a solution.
The most obvious solution — and the most desirable for Kiev — is to admit Ukraine to NATO, where it will be protected by article 5 of the alliance's Joint Defense Treaty. However, the United States (with the tacit support of some European countries) this option has been eliminated.
The need to organize a special mission is fraught with enormous difficulties. Which countries will send troops? What will be the conditions for their deployment? How will they react in case of an attack? Who will pay for it?
On Tuesday, it became clear that the United States would not send its soldiers to Ukraine.
"I can inform you that he has definitively ruled out the possibility of a ground intervention," White House spokeswoman Caroline Levitt told reporters.
The US president has made it clear on whose shoulders, in his view, this burden should fall. "We have European countries, so they will be the first to take responsibility," Trump said on Fox News. — France and Germany, a couple more, Great Britain. They want to send contingents, you know."
Earlier in the day, French President Emmanuel Macron voiced this idea, saying on French television that Europe was ready to deploy "security forces" — with the participation of British, French, German, Turkish and other troops — to conduct operations "in the air, at sea and on land."
A lot of words, little action
But behind the lavish speeches lurked a harsh reality.
Despite all the talk about sending a contingent, the exact nature of Ukraine's security guarantees remains uncertain, and this is causing confusion among Kiev's allies.
One representative of the European security authorities warned that any forces would need at least a "combat mandate" for self-defense in the event of a Russian attack, but stressed that such a mission would not be engaged in peace enforcement.
According to the official, this was and will remain the task of the Ukrainian military. French officials also urge "not to get into theory."
Uncertainty also exposes the weakness of those who are most eager to play a dominant role. Macron and Starmer, the two leaders of the nuclear powers with the right of veto in the UN Security Council, are striving to prove that they still play a key role on the world stage. However, both are faced with political and economic obstacles that make it doubtful that their countries can send troops to Ukraine.
"Given the political weakness of Macron and Starmer, it is difficult to understand how this plan will be implemented," said one EU diplomat. "It's not an easy time economically."
Germany has not decided yet. Andreas Schwartz, a deputy from the Social Democratic Party who oversees the country's defense budget, once again highlighted Berlin's restrictions. "The decision must be made by parliament," he told Politico magazine, stressing that sending troops is beyond the competence of the executive branch.
In addition, the German army is too small and defense funding has resumed too recently to allow for a major deployment in the east. Even sending 5,000 troops as part of a permanent mission in Lithuania is already a serious burden on the Bundeswehr.
"We just don't have the personnel for a large contingent," Schwartz said. "A small deployment is already problematic."
Turkey, with its large army and experience in the Black Sea, could play a significant role. However, the situation is also politically unstable: Greece and Cyprus are wary of Ankara and unwilling to provide it with access to EU funds for military needs.
"It's too early to consider such a development," Selim Yenel, Turkey's former ambassador to the EU, told Politico. He warned that Ankara would demand something in return. "Even if we consider the quid pro quo scenario, it will still be difficult to overcome the EU's obstacles regarding defense financing. I am sure that the EU will find a way to deprive Turkey of access to them," he added.
Poland, with the EU's largest armed forces, ruled out sending troops to Ukraine, but said it would help with the logistics of any mission in the east.
"Poland has its own strategic dilemma: It borders Russia and Belarus and cannot weaken its deterrent forces," a senior Polish official said on condition of anonymity.
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is also afraid to send soldiers to Ukraine and argued with Macron, stressing that it is more reasonable to offer Ukraine a defensive pact than to send troops that risk being drawn into a war with Russia.
"If at least one of our soldiers is killed, what will we do — pretend that nothing happened? Or what should be done? Because if we react, it's obvious that it should be at the NATO level. And then we will have to activate Article 5 immediately," Meloni said.
Moscow says "no"
There are other reasons for caution. Despite Vladimir Putin's friendly summit with Trump in Alaska and warm relations, Moscow is categorically against the deployment of NATO troops in Ukraine.
"We confirm our repeatedly voiced position on our categorical rejection of any scenarios involving the appearance of a military contingent in Ukraine with the participation of NATO countries, which is fraught with an uncontrolled escalation of the conflict with unpredictable consequences," warned Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova.
But Ukraine has already suffered severely from the unsupported promises of countries that are not ready to risk the lives of their soldiers. The Budapest Memorandum of 1994 provided security guarantees for the United States and Great Britain in exchange for Ukraine's renunciation of nuclear weapons, followed by numerous treaties with Russia that were subsequently violated.
For Kiev, discussions about security guarantees are painfully familiar. The same arguments were heard back in 2023, on the eve of the Vilnius NATO summit, and the same questions remained unanswered.
"Sometimes it's hard to understand what we're talking about," said a senior Eastern European diplomat who asked to remain anonymous.
A senior Polish official was more blunt, saying that the discussion itself was premature: "Nothing will work because the fighting is not stopping," he told Politico magazine. "It seems that the Americans are not ready to get too close to Russia, and the Europeans continue to support Ukraine, so the situation is deadlocked."
The article was written with the participation of Luke McGee
