Volodymyr Zelensky is no longer trying to get Ukraine into Nato but is still seeking security guarantees from Western countries following any peace agreement with Russia.
However, experts told The i Paper the UK will not be willing or able to fulfil Kyiv’s requests, including guarantees enshrined in Article 5 of Nato’s treaty, to defend Ukraine in the event of renewed Russian aggression after a ceasefire.
The Ukrainian president and his chief negotiator, Rustem Umerov, met US envoy Steve Witkoff and Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner for five hours on Sunday to continue talks about a peace deal in Ukraine.
Zelensky said on Sunday: “From the very beginning, Ukraine’s desire was to join Nato: these are real security guarantees.
“Some partners from the US and Europe did not support this direction.”
He said that “Article 5-like guarantees for us from the US, and security guarantees from European colleagues” would be “an opportunity to prevent another Russian invasion”.
“And it is already a compromise from our part,” Zelensky added.
The talks in Berlin, which were hosted by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, resumed on Monday morning. Umerov said on Monday afternoon the negotiations had been “constructive and productive”, adding: “We hope we will reach an agreement that will bring us closer to peace by the end of the day.”
Witkoff echoed the remarks in a post on X on Sunday, saying: “A lot of progress was made.”
The discussions focused on a 20-point peace plan presented to the US by Ukraine last week, which countered an initial American proposal seen as heavily favouring Russia.
The talks come due to growing concern sparked after Trump appeared to distance himself further from European allies, who he described as “weak” leaders running “decaying” countries.
The US also downgraded Russia as a national security threat earlier this month, in a move which sent alarm bells ringing in European capitals.
Ukraine’s compromise
Moscow has vehemently opposed Ukraine’s accession to Nato, with Vladimir Putin deeming the move a “direct threat” a day before Russia’s full-scale invasion began in February 2022.
Ukraine has been pursuing Nato membership since at least 2017, when its parliament passed legislation listing it as an objective. But Professor Mark Galeotti, Russia expert and director of consultancy Mayak Intelligence, described Kyiv being left out of Nato as inevitable, saying Zelensky’s announcement on Sunday was merely “symbolic”.
“Everyone knew Ukraine wasn’t going to join Nato, so this is an essentially symbolic compromise, rather than a real one,” said Galeotti, author of Forged in War: A Military History of Russia.
“It is intended to make Zelensky look keen to make a deal, but also to increase pressure on the West – and that above all means the USA – to provide some meaningful security guarantees.”
The remarks were backed by Simon Smith, who served as UK ambassador to Ukraine between 2012 and 2015. Smith pointed to the difficulty of all Nato countries agreeing to Ukraine’s accession – a necessary condition for any country to become a member of the alliance.
He said: “I see it as less of a compromise than simply a recognition that it makes better sense for him to spend no more time on a proposition … which at any point in the future can be blocked by just one Nato ally.
“So his attention has pragmatically turned to the practical question of security guarantees: effective mechanisms to contain and deter future Russian aggression need to be found regardless of how the Nato membership question is settled.
“It’s possibly also something Zelensky sees as removing one irritant from his conversations with the US.”
What security guarantees could Ukraine be given?
Defence Secretary John Healey said the UK is prepared to take on the “heavy lifting” in Europe if Trump secures a Ukrainian ceasefire.
“We are ready to step in behind the president in his push for peace,” Healey said earlier this month during a briefing with reporters after meeting with his US counterpart, “Secretary of War” Pete Hegseth.
Ahead of the talks with Zelensky, Merz and French president Emmanuel Macron at Downing Street, Sir Keir Starmer said there needed to be “hard-edged security guarantees” in a peace deal for Ukraine, but stopped short of outlining precisely what they might look like.
Smith said deterrence was key to security guarantees, and an essential element of this was “sustaining uncertainty in a potential enemy’s mind as to what, specifically, will happen if the country or countries whose security is guaranteed are attacked”.
“So rather than spelling out a long list of specific defensive or reactive measures, I would expect a security guarantee in this context to be a clear generic commitment to take such measures in the event of an attack, accompanied by an ongoing process of building military and industrial capacity to underwrite the credibility of this commitment,” added the former diplomat.
But Luke Cooper, director of the research consortium PeaceRep’s Ukraine programme, said the “whole discussion around security guarantees remains quite contradictory”.
He explained: “Broadly, Nato countries do not want to put themselves in a situation where they are directly engaging Russian forces in a war but want to create security arrangements where they imply that they might directly engage Russian forces in order to achieve a deterrent effect.
“This is not a straightforward circle to square.”
‘Article 5 is off the table’
Asked what security guarantees Ukraine could be given after a ceasefire deal, Cooper said that beyond existing financial support and military aid, Kyiv could be offered “some level of in-country air support from their respective air forces”.
“This is a domain where European states have a pretty clear advantage over Russia and would make a concrete difference for the Ukrainian side,” said Cooper, who is also associate professorial research fellow at LSE.
“The UK and France would be expected to play the leading role on any air based security guarantee for Ukraine because they are the most willing and have the forces that could make a concrete difference.
“But even at this level it is not at all clear what the rules of engagement would be for European air forces and how far they would be prepared to go to engage Russia if it violated a ceasefire agreement.
“Either way, it’s very different from the kind of military planning Nato undertakes in the Baltic states under Article 5, where in the event of a Russian invasion it is envisaged that Nato countries would mobilise on air, land and sea to repel Russian forces – and even threaten nuclear retaliation, though the circumstances for nuclear weapons use are kept very ambiguous.
“There is nothing like this on the table for Ukraine at present – and given the risks of a wider war that such a ‘Nato-like’ commitment would bring, for Europe and the world, then this is of course quite understandable.”
Richard Caplan, professor of international relations at the University of Oxford, also cast doubt on the prospect of Ukraine being offered Article 5-like commitments.
“Ultimately, Ukraine may only be able to rely on itself, in which case the best approach would be for allied states to commit to strengthening Ukraine’s armed forces so that Kyiv is able to deter and defend itself,” he said.
While Galeotti also ruled out Ukraine being granted protection enshrined in Article 5, he said it could be offered greater security if it joined the European Union.
“If Ukraine does get an accelerated path into the EU, then it will be protected also by the Union’s own mutual defence clause, which is actually a lot tougher than Article 5,” he explained.
The clause states that if a member state is “the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other member states shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power”.
The commitment is described as being “consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation”.
