How to Defend Ukraine Without NATO: A New Security Organization — WP

Two American experts propose creating a new international security organization, separate from NATO, that would protect Ukraine in exchange for its renunciation of future membership in the Alliance. The proposal appeared on the eve of talks in Abu Dhabi between the United States, Ukraine, and Russia. In case of a new Russian attack, Western countries could send troops to Ukraine, including to operate air defense systems. In peacetime, foreign troops would not be in Ukraine, as written in The Washington Post by Georgetown University political science professor Liz Howard and Brookings Institution expert Michael O’Hanlon.

The agreement, according to the authors, would be approved by Ukraine, Russia, NATO, and the OSCE with the help of the United States. The new structure would function as a system of mutual assistance: its members would support each other in defending their territories in a crisis or war. Later, in the authors’ view, Russia could join, but only if it permanently ceases attempts to change borders by force.

The organization’s tasks, the authors emphasize, would be strictly defensive: it would not plan counterstrikes on Russian territory. In addition to operating air defense, Western militaries could repair and service equipment. UN and OSCE observers would monitor violations of the ceasefire along the Ukrainian–Russian border. Unlike OSCE itself, which monitored compliance with the ceasefire from 2014 to 2022, the new structure would have real leverage mechanisms. How exactly they would function, the authors do not specify.

Two-way aid packages from European countries, the authors believe, are not enough. Ukraine’s accession to NATO is not currently seriously discussed, but it remains official Alliance policy, enshrined in the pledge given to Ukraine after the Bucharest Summit 2008. For Putin, this scenario is unacceptable, although NATO as a defensive alliance has never directly posed a threat to Russia, the authors remind. They deem the Open Doors principle flawed: in their view, the NATO treaty requires new members to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic region. The authors suppose that Putin might agree to such a scheme if he obtains sanction relief and a guarantee that NATO will never admit Ukraine.

The authors also remind of the Budapest Memorandum 1994: the United States, Britain, and Russia then promised to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in exchange for the transfer of nearly 2 warheads remaining on its territory after the collapse of the USSR. The Trump Administration cites the war against Iran as an attempt to prevent Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons. If the United States is so concerned with nonproliferation, they must also fulfill the promises made to Ukraine over 30 years ago, the authors argue.

The course toward full membership in NATO and the EU is enshrined in the Constitution of Ukraine.

Jared Kushner, son-in-law of U.S. President Donald Trump, points to a Russia–NATO Council model: European countries are ready for such a dialogue, but only after a ceasefire in Ukraine. Ukraine’s Foreign Intelligence Service head Ruslan Umierov emphasizes that security guarantees must be practical and not merely political declarations.

At the end of October, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy first suggested that the West would consider security guarantees for Russia as well, but only after Ukraine’s needs are satisfied.

In ZN.UA’s article “Peace Under the Russian Ultimatum: What the Kremlin Really Wants from Europe?” the head of the National Institute for Strategic Studies’ department Oleksiy Izhak writes about the Kremlin’s demands of Europe in security negotiations.