Security without Guarantees? What the West Really Offers to Ukraine

At the currently ongoing summit of the European Union, the head of European diplomacy, Josep Borrell, is going to present to the heads of state and government a draft of the EU's long-term commitments to Ukraine in the security and defense sector.

According to ZN.UA, the content of the document as a whole corresponds to the items previously published by Bloomberg. Among other things, they suggest a long-term mechanism of military assistance to Ukraine; ensuring the training of Ukrainian soldiers; cooperation with the Ukrainian defense industry; support for nuclear safety efforts; assistance in de-mining; exchange of intelligence and satellite images; development of cyber capabilities; assistance in the implementation of reform programs, etc.

After the document obtains political endorsement at the summit of the European Council, it will become an addition to similar bilateral agreements extended to Kyiv by individual countries — EU members — Germany, Italy and France.

Since the end of summer, Ihor Zhovkva, deputy head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, has been negotiating with representatives of the G7 countries on bilateral agreements on providing our country with comprehensive military and economic assistance. This work is being carried out by the Office of the President within the framework of the long-term “porcupine strategy” proposed by the West to contain Russia, which our country is striving to implement at the suggestion of Western partners for the period before joining NATO and the possible freezing of the war with the Russian Federation.

In Kyiv, these agreements are referred to as “security guarantees.” A few months ago, the Ukrainian authorities expected that the first of them would be signed at the end of this year. Now it is already clear that this goal will not be achieved. Therefore, the Office of the President sets itself a new benchmark — to sign the first documents by February 24. However, there are doubts that even by this date Volodymyr Zelenskyy will be able to sign at least one document: according to the informed interlocutors of ZN.UA, “It seems that no one wants to be the first. Everyone is glancing back at the United States, but Washington is in no hurry.”

Nevertheless, the first drafts have already been prepared. At the same time, according to ZN.UA sources, it is not yet known what the documents being prepared will be called — agreements (as the Ukrainian side insists) or joint declarations (the position of our partners). As for the content, the texts will be of the same type, but not identical: they declare long-term assistance to Ukraine in security and defense matters, financial, economic and technical support, and assistance in European integration.

The content of the documents being prepared echoes the above-mentioned project of the EU’s long-term commitments in the security and defense sector.

In particular, they provide for the training of the Ukrainian armed forces; deepening cooperation with the Ukrainian defense industry; strengthening Ukraine's capabilities to resist cyber and hybrid threats; support for defense sector reforms; intelligence exchange; de-mining assistance. The partners also declare their participation in Ukraine’s recovery, including critical and social infrastructure. At the same time, they are trying to emphasize participation in the recovery of our country after the war ends, which does not suit Kyiv.

Despite the insistence of the Ukrainian side, our partners carefully avoid using the word “guarantees” in the documents, with only some of them choosing the word “commitments”. Besides, the signatories certainly do not commit themselves to sending soldiers to Ukraine to defend it against Russia. Therefore, although the Office of the President constantly calls these documents “agreements on security guarantees,” they have nothing to do with guarantees that provide for mutual defense. Instead, they only imply bolstering Ukraine's defense capabilities, which should increase the price of aggression for Russia.

As Zakhar Tropin, assistant professor of the International Law Department of the Institute of International Relations of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv noted in his comment for ZN.UA, “In international law, it does not matter what the document is called: 'guarantees', 'agreement', 'memorandum' or 'joint declaration’. What matters is its content, the wording of its provisions. In order for such a document to ensure Ukraine’s security, it must contain specific obligations of the parties and ways to ensure their fulfillment.”

But this is only one side of the problem of future agreements. The second one is the presence of the political will of the leaders to implement the agreements signed. If it is absent, the parties will not fulfill their obligations, even if mutual defense is prescribed in the agreement.

For example, the obligation of the signatory countries to hold consultations, enshrined in Article 6 of the Budapest Memorandum, was never fulfilled by London and Washington, despite the efforts made by Kyiv in the spring of last year: the partners simply ignored our appeal. Against the background of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, doubts have been growing in recent years that the leaders of NATO members will agree to apply Article 5 of the Washington Treaty to protect even the Baltic states from Russian aggression.

Apparently, our partners intend to take on as few obligations as possible. And as the document is being prepared, it is emasculated, acquiring more and more general wording. According to ZN.UA, in the currently discussed projects, there are no clear obligations to provide Ukraine with military hardware, equipment and artillery shells. Although the Ukrainian side insists on specifying in the document material and technical assistance to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, our partners limit themselves to only general phrases about “material support.”

It is also unknown whether future documents will provide for a mechanism for Ukraine's crisis consultations with the signatory countries.

Therefore, when the Office of the President of Ukraine recalls the Budapest memorandum “with softly-spoken, kindly word” for its lack of efficient security guarantees, it drives herself into a trap, constantly calling the discussed projects “agreements on security guarantees.” By selling goods to Ukrainians under a false label, the presidential office, while delaying the disappointment of our citizens, raises false expectations in them. Over time, this will hurt the reputation of the Ukrainian government and negatively affect President Zelenskyy’s approval ratings.