By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has proposed a postwar security guarantee for Ukraine that would require allies to decide within 24 hours whether to commit troops in the event of a renewed Russian attack. Similar to NATO’s Article 5, the proposal does not include Ukraine’s NATO membership but aims to offer protections via a system of rapid deliberation and response, which could include defense support, economic aid, and sanctions. Meloni’s plan is being considered by European leaders, with Zelensky preparing for direct negotiations with Putin. The Kremlin has dismissed these security proposals, insisting Russia be involved in any guarantee discussion.
Read the original article here
Italy’s Meloni, as the reports suggest, is backing a security plan for Ukraine that has raised a lot of eyebrows, and for good reason: It proposes that allies must decide within 24 hours whether or not to send troops if Russia attacks again. Now, the first thought that jumps to mind is, how realistic is that, really?
Because let’s be honest, the history here doesn’t exactly inspire confidence. If countries were hesitant to send tanks and missiles when Ukraine was already under full-scale invasion, what makes anyone believe they’d leap into a potential direct war with Russia within a single day? It’s almost a comical suggestion, frankly. The whole idea hinges on the speed of response, but if the allies were slow to act with significant aid before, wouldn’t that hesitancy be magnified when it comes to committing troops to a conflict?
The core problem seems to be that without a tangible, physical presence – troops on the ground, stationed in Ukraine, near the frontlines – it’s really just an empty promise. The fear of escalation, the internal political pressures, the sheer logistical challenges – these factors make it incredibly hard to imagine a swift, unified, and decisive response. Without stationed troops, it’s just a paper plan, a “Plan B” that might leave Ukraine vulnerable to a slow and divided decision-making process when faced with another aggressive move by Russia.
If you dig a little deeper, the plan starts to feel like it’s built on sand. It’s easy to imagine a scenario where the 24-hour window is used not for rapid deployment, but for political maneuvering, blame games, and ultimately, inaction. It’s not hard to envision politicians, very much like those we see in the news daily, who might change their minds, make demands, or even try to negotiate concessions from Ukraine in exchange for help.
The alternative, a much more robust strategy, seems to be a permanent presence. Some suggest a demilitarized zone with Western troops, or even full NATO membership for Ukraine. That kind of commitment is really the only thing that could deliver lasting peace and security. Putting troops on the ground, near the action, is a way to deter further aggression. It’s a signal to Russia that an attack would mean facing the real and immediate consequences of a full-blown military response.
The history of Russian tactics should be a major consideration. It’s been seen before, where “green men” appear – the masked soldiers that cause immediate conflict, followed by a long period of diplomatic wrangling, accusations, and debate. The security signatories get stuck in these protracted debates. All the while, the green men and their supporters are reinforcing their positions, steadily taking over more territory, and the cycle just continues.
A 24-hour response time also raises serious questions about sustainability. The constant need for a Quick Reaction Force (QRF) on high alert and ready to deploy isn’t a simple thing to sustain. The logistics are enormous, and the political will would have to be absolute.
Let’s face it; the plan could also be perceived as an attempt to get Ukraine to give up some land to appease Russia. This is essentially playing the same game that’s been tried before, and it hasn’t worked. It’s the same script that’s been playing out for a long time, where the focus is on finding a way to pacify the aggressor rather than upholding the territorial integrity of the country being attacked.
In all honesty, the only thing that would truly end the conflict is Russia being defeated, and a restoration of Ukraine’s territory. Anything else, really, is just a short-term fix. Without that outcome, Russia will simply return to its favorite tactic: misinformation campaigns designed to divide us, sow discord, and keep the world focused on internal conflicts. The proposed security plan, as presented, might make things worse if it allows Russia to call the bluff.