The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has sparked complex debates about security arrangements, international guarantees, and the future of European defense cooperation. This primer touches briefly on the current military balance, potential security frameworks, and strategic implications for NATO and the European Union, as stakeholders navigate the challenging path toward potential conflict resolution post the recent summit level meetings in Washington and London. It emphasises the need for Europe to take independent security initiatives, including presenting its own peace proposals and investing in its own defence capabilities, even as it tries to persuade the US of the importance of security guarantees for Ukraine. And avoid a deal between Russia and the US over the heads of Europeans including notably the Ukrainians. The piece concludes that the future hinges on Europe’s ability to act decisively and independently, while simultaneously addressing the potential damage to transatlantic relations and the implications for NATO’s newest members. For countries like Sweden, the situation creates exceptional strategic challenges. Swedish defense planning must account for scenarios where Western reinforcements under Article 5 might be limited or delayed while Sweden simultaneously prepares to support Finland, the Baltic states, and potentially Ukraine and Moldova.
Military Balance and Operational Realities
The military balance between Russia and Ukraine remains a critical factor in understanding the conflict’s trajectory. President Zelensky frequently references Russia’s approximately 200 brigades compared to Ukraine’s 100 brigades. However, this numerical comparison requires context. And capability is not just numbers but also quality. Russia must maintain defensive capabilities across its vast territory spanning both Europe and Asia, which limits its ability to concentrate overwhelming force along any single axis in Ukraine. The extended frontline constrains Russia’s offensive potential despite its overall larger military.
Ukraine’s military effectiveness depends heavily on a sustained flow of ammunition, equipment, and critical enablers like satellite intelligence and communications. The United States has provided substantial support in these areas, while European nations continue to deliver on their commitments, with approximately half of pledged European military aid still pending delivery. This suggests that even with potential reductions in American support, Ukraine could continue receiving reinforcements from European partners, though at potentially insufficient levels for offensive operations.
The Starlink satellite communication system, developed by Elon Musk’s SpaceX, represents a critical vulnerability in Ukraine’s defense architecture. Any disruption to this service would significantly impact Ukrainian command, control, and intelligence capabilities. According to Ukrainian sources, efforts are underway to reduce dependence on this system, though developing alternatives that match Starlink’s capabilities presents significant technological and financial challenges.
International Support Dynamics and Diplomatic Landscape
The Ukrainian public’s resilience and support for President Zelensky remain remarkably strong despite the prolonged conflict. Diplomatic tensions between Ukraine and the United States seem to have reinforced domestic Ukrainian solidarity rather than undermining it, as citizens perceive their leadership standing firm against international pressure to accept unfavorable terms.
The conflict appears likely to continue for months without decisive shifts along the frontline. While Ukrainian forces face significant challenges regarding manpower, ammunition, and equipment, emergency support packages from European countries could sustain operations for additional periods. The strategic question of which side has the greatest difficulties to sustain prolonged conflict—whether President Putin, the Ukrainian leadership, or Western powers—remains open to debate and likely changes with evolving battlefield and diplomatic conditions.
Contrary to some speculation, mineral resources in Ukraine do not appear to be the primary consideration driving international support decisions even for the US. However, economic interests inevitably influence strategic calculations by all parties. The concentration of valuable mineral deposits in Russian-occupied territories complicates potential settlement negotiations, as these resources represent significant long-term economic value for whoever controls them.
The diplomatic landscape continues to evolve with potential mediators including Turkey and Qatar, which maintain communication channels with both Russia and Ukraine. The NATO Secretary General has called on Ukraine to repair relations with the United States, though this positioning may diminish his role as a mediator of Western positions. Alternative diplomatic channels through London and Paris might prove more effective in facilitating dialogue between Washington and Kyiv, particularly as Germany undergoes government formation and Hungary maintains its distinctive position regarding the conflict.
Security Guarantee Options and Limitations
The failure of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum—in which the United States, United Kingdom, and Russia provided security assurances to Ukraine in exchange for relinquishing nuclear weapons—demonstrates the fragility of non-binding political guarantees. This precedent significantly complicates current security discussions on guarantees as Ukraine seeks more robust protection mechanisms.
NATO membership for Ukraine remains unlikely in the short term not least due to the alliance’s reluctance to admit countries engaged in active territorial disputes. Similarly, while EU membership represents a long-term aspiration, the accession process will require years even with accelerated procedures. The EU’s mutual defense clause (Article 42.7) remains untested in a major conflict context, raising questions about its practical implementation. It also gives priority to NATO as it underlines “Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation”.
Security guarantees provided to Ukraine thus far have primarily consisted of a soft variant of ”deterrence by punishment”—imposing costs on Russia through sanctions and military aid to Ukraine short of presenting a credible threat of direct intervention. This approach would likely continue following any ceasefire agreement, with violations triggering renewed punitive measures.
The establishment of a demilitarized zone as part of a potential settlement presents significant challenges. Ukraine risks permanently losing control of territories adjacent to such zones if a ceasefire collapses, necessitating continued high levels of military mobilization to defend vulnerable boundaries.
The only security guarantee beyond current measures has to involve foreign military presence in Ukraine.
Potential Peacekeeping Arrangements and Nuclear Dimensions
France and the United Kingdom have indicated willingness to consider participation in a potential peace support force. However, the governance structure—whether under UN Security Council mandate or alternative frameworks—and rules of engagement present complex questions requiring agreement from major powers including the United States. The effectiveness of such a force as a deterrent would depend significantly on the nuclear capabilities of participating nations.
As nuclear powers, France and the UK’s participation would create an implicit connection between peace support operations and nuclear deterrence. However, the British degree of liberty of action regarding the use of the nuclear weapons is open to doubt as they depend on the USA in accordance with the Nassau agreement of 1962.
A Russian accept of such presence on Ukrainian soil remains highly uncertain to say the least.
The American suggestion that civilian personnel might provide sufficient security assurances appears optimistic given historical precedents. The debate concerning appropriate security guarantees continues against the backdrop of competing interests regarding territorial control, particularly concerning resource-rich areas currently under Russian occupation.
Wider Strategic Implications for European Security
The debate surrounding Ukraine’s security guarantees carries profound implications for the broader European security architecture. Concerns exist that hybrid operations might target Baltic states with significant Russian-speaking populations. How the United States and NATO would respond to such scenarios—particularly if Washington adopted a mediating rather than that a posture as an ally—could establish dangerous precedents undermining collective defense commitments.
Internal divisions within the European Union present additional challenges to developing unified responses. Several member states face domestic political uncertainty affecting policy continuity, while others maintain distinctive positions regarding the conflict. These divisions complicate efforts to clarify and strengthen the EU’s mutual defense provisions, particularly regarding hybrid threats below the threshold of conventional warfare.
For countries like Sweden, the situation creates exceptional strategic challenges. Swedish defense planning must account for scenarios where Western reinforcements under Article 5 might be limited or delayed while Sweden simultaneously prepares to support Finland, the Baltic states, and potentially Ukraine and Moldova. This demanding security environment necessitates accelerated and flexible capability and agility development and diplomatic engagement to address potential regional conflicts in the near future.
Conclusion: Navigating an Uncertain Security Landscape
The question of security guarantees for Ukraine represents one of the most complex challenges in contemporary international relations. The failed precedent of the Budapest Memorandum, limited prospects for immediate NATO or EU membership, and practical constraints on peace support operations all contribute to a difficult security environment. As stakeholders continue diplomatic efforts, European nations must simultaneously prepare for increased instability while developing more robust collective defense mechanisms adaptable to conventional, hybrid, and asymmetric threats in an increasingly contested regional security landscape.