European guarantees: peace or war? (original)

“I think we’re closer than we’ve ever been,” Donald Trump declared on Monday night. Nothing that is happening now should be surprising, nor should the fact that this is the moment when progress is beginning to be made. For the first time since the start of this unorthodox process of bilateral talks, which has taken months to produce a document on which to base negotiations, it is logical that the only real progress is only now becoming apparent, with the US mediation team in contact with both countries. This team has stopped telling Kyiv and Moscow what they want to hear and is now seeking to arrive at clear proposals that both countries can evaluate, renegotiate, and accept or reject, thus exposing themselves to negative consequences. The US position is that, in the event of a Russian rejection, sanctions would remain in place and the flow of weapons to Ukraine would likely increase, since no one expects Washington to completely disengage from the war in Ukraine, at least in its role as an arms supplier to European countries. In the Ukrainian case, rejecting an agreement would jeopardize the relationship with the United States, but above all, it would mean continuing a war in which the increase in military assistance has not translated into a less precarious situation for the battered Ukrainian troops, who are now suffering in areas of the front where until a few weeks ago they withstood Russian attacks without great difficulty.

“Today or tomorrow we will finalize the documents, our documents. Then, I believe the United States will hold consultations with the Russians in the coming days, and then consultations with the President of the United States, and then our teams will meet,” Zelensky stated yesterday, taking for granted that there will be a Washington-Kyiv agreement and trying to shift all the pressure onto Moscow. In the full implementation of what could be called the Serrano Suñer doctrine, anything that goes wrong from now on will be Russia’s fault. Although few details have emerged about the negotiations between the European countries and Ukraine with Steve Witkoff, a businessman with no diplomatic experience and minimal—if any—knowledge of Russia and Ukraine, Zelensky seems satisfied with the outcome in the area of security, believes he has the issue of reconstruction completely under control, and refuses to accept reality regarding the territorial aspect.

With the economic aspect in the hands of European countries, Ukraine is now focusing on using its media power to reject territorial concessions. And although even its closest allies, the European countries, have stopped including territorial integrity as a demand—a label they have repeatedly added to their statements despite its complete lack of realism—Zelensky remains unmoved in his position, possibly as a message to his population, which perceives any cession of territory as an unacceptable capitulation. “Neither de jure nor de facto will we recognize Donbas as Russian, the part that is temporarily occupied,” he stated yesterday, even though de facto recognition does not exist. The time that elapses between a ceasefire and the fact that a territory that de jure belongs to one state but remains under the control of another is the extent of de facto recognition possible, the implicit admission that a part of the country has been lost, either temporarily or permanently. This happened in Crimea in 2014, and the United States hopes it will happen with the parts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia under Russian control, in addition to Luhansk and Donetsk. Zelensky’s diplomatic belligerence in this regard aims to present the heavy territorial losses that halting the war on the current front line would entail as the lesser evil, while also continuing to exert pressure to improve the Ukrainian position in the same way as has happened with security guarantees, an area in which Ukraine implies that it has obtained what it sought.

“The ‘very strong’ guarantees would be based on NATO’s Article V mutual protection clause, according to senior US officials, who added that they expected Russia to accept them,” wrote the BBC yesterday . Like many other media outlets, the BBC was referring to the platinum guarantees that the United States is offering to Ukraine for the first time. Ukraine had demanded a resolution to this bilateral issue—Ukraine will not accept security guarantees from any other country as part of a peace agreement—as a prerequisite for addressing other fundamental issues in resolving the war. According to Politico, Washington is offering Kyiv these unspecified but highly significant security guarantees, but is demanding something in return. “These guarantees won’t be on the table forever. These guarantees are on the table right now if a satisfactory conclusion is reached,” the outlet quotes an anonymous US official as saying. Several media outlets claim that the security guarantees are directly linked to the second most controversial aspect of this negotiation: Ukraine’s relinquishment of the Donbas region, which it still controls and which the United States does not believe it can maintain militarily, or which it intends to offer to Russia as a carrot to compensate for the stick of what would undoubtedly be seen by the Kremlin as a de facto accession of Ukraine to NATO.

“We believe that, in a final agreement, the Russians will accept all these conditions that allow for a strong and free Ukraine. Russia, in a final agreement, has indicated that it is open to Ukraine’s accession to the EU,” a US official was quoted as saying by Politico. The fact that Russia has no objection to Ukraine’s accession to the European Union is not news, as it was part of the Russian offer that Ukraine was negotiating in 2022 when it decided that the military route was the most direct way to achieve all its territorial, political, and security objectives. At that time, Moscow was not demanding territory, but rather offering to relinquish everything captured since February 24th beyond Donbas. The red line was NATO membership, a rejection that has been maintained and that high-ranking Russian government officials have periodically reaffirmed, reiterating that they will also not accept the presence of the Alliance disguised on the flags of member countries as part of a peace agreement.

Yesterday, Dmitry Peskov stated that Russia has not yet seen the documents under negotiation, and therefore offered no assessment of the platinum security guarantees or the European reaction. He appears to be clinging to his relationship with the United States, which will be responsible for transmitting the documents agreed upon by Ukraine. However, hours earlier, Sergey Lavrov reaffirmed Russia’s position of not accepting the presence of NATO troops as part of a peace agreement. This presence is a fundamental basis of the security guarantees announced Monday night in Berlin by several European leaders, who are also demanding a Christmas ceasefire—a throwback to the Minsk years. Russia has been quick to reject this, insisting on a resolution, not a pause, to allow Ukraine to rearm.

On Monday night, after months of meetings of the Coalition of the Willing and coinciding—which cannot be a coincidence—with the US offer of security guarantees for Ukraine, European capitals unveiled their plan for Ukraine. “All the elements for the Kremlin to reject this plan are there: troops on the ground, guarantees similar to Article V, and a limit of 800,000 personnel for Ukrainian forces. Well, that’s probably the whole plan,” commented Leonid Ragozin, offering, in a few words, a good summary of the plan’s contents. The Russian opposition journalist’s position does not differ significantly from that of Sergey Lavrov, who, referring to the negotiations of recent days, stated yesterday in an interview with the Iranian press that “Europe is again trying to impose its conditions and desires on everyone, which seem to be related to the crisis in Ukraine. Europe is using this crisis to impose its will, throw a wrench in the works, and conspire against the United States and all those seeking a just solution.”

In their brand-new plan, European countries commit to “providing sustained and significant support to Ukraine to strengthen its armed forces, which must remain at a level of 800,000 personnel in peacetime to deter conflict and defend Ukraine’s territory.” This means funding an army similar in size to the one currently fighting in the war, which would be entirely illogical in the event of a genuine peace agreement and which the sponsors will ultimately have to finance. The plan also envisions a “multinational Ukraine force” led by Europe, comprised of contributions from nations willing to participate in the Coalition of the Willing and supported by the United States. In other words, it amounts to forcing the entry of troops from NATO countries under their national flags, something that has been a true red line for Russia all these years and which is unlikely to convince Moscow, even if offered control over Donbas. Aware of their military weakness and lack of strategic autonomy, European countries are seeking to directly involve the United States, something for which they will require the support of Donald Trump, who throughout this year has shown himself to be both opposed and supportive depending on the circumstances. The United States is being entrusted with leading a “US-led ceasefire monitoring and verification mechanism with international participation to provide early warning of future attacks and to attribute and respond to any violations, along with a de-escalation mechanism to work on mutual actions to de-escalate (to) benefit all parties.”

Perhaps the most important part of the document is the section that refers to “a legally binding commitment, subject to national procedures, to take measures to restore peace and security in the event of a future armed attack. These measures may include the use of armed force, intelligence and logistical assistance, and economic and diplomatic actions.” This formulation is intended to be binding and resemble Article V of collective security, but, as Euronews journalist Jorge Liboreiro pointed out, it is more similar to Article 42 of the EU treaty, since it does not specify a joint military response from the bloc.

If the content of the security guarantees was not enough to convince Russia of the Atlanticist spirit of the document and of those countries’ willingness to continue demanding Ukraine’s accession to the Alliance, the European statement adds that “the leaders agreed that guaranteeing the security, sovereignty, and prosperity of Ukraine was fundamental to Euro-Atlantic security in general. They made it clear that Ukraine and its people deserved a prosperous, independent, and sovereign future, free from the fear of future Russian aggression.”

“Investing in Ukraine’s future prosperity, including the availability of significant resources for recovery and reconstruction, mutually beneficial trade agreements, and taking into account the need for Russia to compensate Ukraine for the damage caused,” is how European countries are insisting that Russian assets held in the West must be used under their direction and not as part of the Witkoff Agreement, which stipulated that half of them be allocated to Ukraine’s reconstruction. Added gratuitously, this point seems specifically designed to provoke Russian opposition.

“First, we are working on using Russian assets frozen in Europe to arm Ukraine. This would be a truly significant step in terms of security. The first step has already been taken. These assets will be frozen for an extended period based on a new legal framework. On Thursday, at the European Council meeting, we will reach a political agreement. I submitted a proposal to the European Commission, and we will discuss it. We are taking into account the well-founded comments from Belgium and other countries. Of course,” stated Chancellor Merz. European capitals are not content with presenting a military plan designed to be rejected by Russia, thus justifying militarization and the continuation of the war until final victory. Instead, they are attempting to punish Moscow by imposing the economic costs of using its assets to massively rearm Ukraine and by creating an ad hoc tribunal to ensure that there can be no peace on the continent understood as the absence of conflict. “Russia will not escape paying the price for the homes, schools, and hospitals it has destroyed. Today in The Hague, we are taking an important step toward accountability by establishing a commission to address claims for war damages caused by Russia,” wrote Kaja Kallas about the creation of the “International Claims Commission,” yet another institution created to condemn Russia. The same countries that presented the initiative this week are also working on a “special tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine.”

Of course, no measure will be radical enough for those who always expect more. “The statement by the leaders of the European Union and the United Kingdom, presumably coordinated in this respect with the United States, regarding security guarantees for Ukraine is not particularly impressive, as it calls for measures in the event of an attack that ‘may include armed force, intelligence and logistical assistance, economic and diplomatic action,’” wrote former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt yesterday, who since last week has been a member of the advisory council to Andrius Kubilius, the European Union’s defense minister .