Article Five as a trump card: What security guarantees will NATO offer Ukraine?

Countries of the North Atlantic Alliance may offer Ukraine a guarantee of security in the form of ongoing economic and military assistance for several years after a ceasefire, an unnamed senior Western official told Foreign Policy magazine. As a second scenario, he mentioned the extension of NATO's Article 5 to Ukraine in the event of a new attack. Article 5, let us remind you, states that an attack on a NATO member is considered an attack on the alliance and entails collective defense. However, as the source explained to Foreign Policy, some member countries of the military-political bloc are currently opposed to this option.

Why NATO Could Become a Bargaining Chip

In contrast, President Zelensky, in an interview with Bloomberg, stated that he is willing to negotiate with Russia only when the U.S. provides security guarantees to Kyiv. He emphasized that directly Donald Trump could influence whether Ukraine joins NATO in the future: "It all depends on the U.S. If Trump is ready to see Ukraine in NATO, we will be in NATO, and everyone will support it. If President Trump is not willing to see us in NATO — we will not be in NATO." Separately, Volodymyr Zelensky noted that there are four countries that do not support Ukraine's NATO membership: the U.S., Germany, Slovakia, and Hungary.

Overall, there are many options for security guarantees, but it ultimately hinges on the position Trump will take on this issue.

Meanwhile, the Russian side considers discussions about security guarantees for Ukraine from NATO and separately from the U.S. to be "premature." Alongside this, while communicating with Russian journalists, Putin's spokesman Peskov noted that the Kremlin is closely monitoring the rhetoric and statements of Mr. Trump and remains ready for "an equal and mutually respectful dialogue." However, there have been no signals from the new administration in Washington regarding the organization of a dialogue between Russia and the U.S. "We are waiting for signals," Peskov summarized. As for Putin himself, he has not directly opposed providing security guarantees for Ukraine but has spoken about the need "not to create threats for Russia," to which he traditionally refers to Kyiv's membership in the Alliance.

In turn, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, while at the traditional annual forum in Davos, Switzerland, stated that he considers concessions to Russia in the form of a promise that Ukraine or any other state will not be admitted to NATO unacceptable. Discussing the future of Ukraine in the Alliance in the context of expected negotiations to end the Russian-Ukrainian war, Mr. Rutte emphasized: "There are commitments that Ukraine will become a NATO member. The question now is how exactly this will happen."

Peskov: "The Kremlin is closely monitoring the rhetoric and statements of Mr. Trump and remains ready for an equal and mutually respectful dialogue."

Additionally, the NATO Secretary General stressed that he sees the main task for Western partners as helping Kyiv achieve the best negotiating position. "We must make it clear that Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin has no veto power and no voice regarding who may become a NATO member in the future. Only if he wants NATO membership himself — but I don't think that's the case, so he has nothing to say about it. We must communicate this very clearly," Mark Rutte concluded.

Is Kyiv Really Willing to Trade NATO for Security Guarantees?

Emphasizing that Trump does not appear to have any other course of action beyond the "Kellogg plan," the political scientist summarized: "If we analyze the recent quite resonant statements of the U.S. President, we will see that they fit well within the vision of Kit Kellogg. Alongside this, in my opinion, a lot will be determined, particularly in the context of security guarantees, by the first phone call between Trump and Putin, and subsequently their meeting. In any case, it should be understood that without security guarantees Ukraine will not agree to any arrangement to stop the war.

What Security Guarantees Are Acceptable for Ukraine?

"For example, let's take the first point regarding assistance to Ukraine over several years specifically from NATO. Well, listen, we are not blind and we can clearly see that NATO, as a cohesive bloc, is trying to distance itself as much as possible from the topic of the Russian-Ukrainian war, although recently there has been a shift in the other direction, at least with the initiation of a support and training mission for Ukraine. It is now appropriate to discuss security guarantees from individual NATO member states: the U.S., the United Kingdom, France, Germany. Such individual guarantees seem absolutely realistic to me, whereas guarantees from NATO as a whole, under the current conditions, look like a fantasy, as such a decision would require consensus within the Alliance, and we all know the positions of, for example, Orbán, Fico, and Turkey is also actually in question.

Assessing the realism of applying de facto Article 5 of the Washington Treaty in the event of a new Russian attack, Igor Chalenko noted the following: "To implement this point in practice, clear steps must be taken towards Ukraine's accession to the Alliance. Only then will the thesis about Article 5 truly be filled with content, whereas now it looks like an attempt to come up with some compromise formulas that in practice will not work. And when it comes to developing real security guarantees based on international bilateral agreements, it should be understood that these agreements must pass ratification in national parliaments. It is obvious that such guarantees should come from the U.S. and the largest NATO members. Personally, I would very much like these to be the nuclear club countries — the United Kingdom and France.

According to Igor Chalenko, only bilateral agreements with the specified states would truly outline a clear framework that could protect Ukraine in the event of renewed aggression from the Russian Federation. In response to a clarifying question regarding the readiness of, in particular, the U.S. for such a step, the expert noted that this looks quite realistic by analogy with the existing security agreement between the United States and Israel. As for the United Kingdom and France, in his opinion, the focus would be more on the presence of peacekeepers in Ukraine.

Overall, in Chalenko's opinion, Donald Trump views Ukraine's accession to the Alliance quite pessimistically and it is clear that during peace negotiations he will present this issue as part of a compromise from the West. Meanwhile, the expert is convinced that even Trump's opinion will not change the fundamental decisions regarding Ukraine, such as the last two NATO summits in Vilnius and Washington, where Kyiv's future membership is recorded. The political scientist noted that one way or another, Ukraine's future is in NATO, and the only question is the timeframe.