By Matt Underwood 
Rutte pledges NATO security for Ukraine, and this commitment immediately sparks a flurry of thoughts and considerations. It’s a statement that echoes through the corridors of power, promising a future where Ukraine is shielded from further aggression. But the devil, as they say, is in the details. Is it a genuine commitment, or just a carefully crafted diplomatic phrase? The very mention of such a guarantee elicits skepticism. After all, the Budapest Memorandum, which supposedly provided security assurances, ultimately proved inadequate. A piece of paper, no matter how well-intentioned, is easily disregarded by a determined aggressor.
The true test of any security guarantee is its teeth, and the most formidable teeth belong to NATO’s Article 5. The promise of collective defense, where an attack on one is an attack on all, has been the cornerstone of the alliance for decades. The idea of extending a similar level of protection to Ukraine certainly carries weight, particularly when it is discussed in the context of what is on the table right now. The challenge is, however, achieving something that truly functions as Article 5 without actually integrating Ukraine into NATO. That’s a complex game of semantics and political maneuvering.
The current circumstances really complicate this picture. Russia’s continued offensive casts a long shadow over any discussions of future security. The core of the problem is the absence of trust. Even if assurances are made, what stops Russia from simply disregarding them, as has been their pattern? This leads to the immediate need for a robust response if Russia does indeed take further action. To really deter further aggression, the response must be immediate and overwhelming to prove the guarantee, or pledge, has value.
Beyond these considerations, there’s the ever-present question of whether such assurances are enough. Will merely promising defense be sufficient to deter Putin? Does a mere promise of security actually provide the necessary defense? To really create the needed security Ukraine might even need to become a member of NATO. The current approach is really about destroying Ukraine’s defenses to force them to capitulate. So, in addition to land, a lot of focus goes into destroying Ukraine’s defense forces and apparatuses, and the ability to produce their own materials.
It’s easy to become lost in the political and military considerations of such a pledge, but it’s crucial to remember the human cost. The people of Ukraine have endured unimaginable suffering, and any solution must prioritize their well-being. A true guarantee must be more than words; it must provide concrete measures to prevent future attacks and ensure Ukraine’s ability to rebuild and thrive.
It’s also vital to consider the West’s role in all of this. Europe has often been accused of being “toothless” when it comes to providing security guarantees and defense. This is where the need for the United States comes in. Europe can only do so much after disarming for decades. The future security of Ukraine hinges on a cohesive strategy that involves military support, economic assistance, and, most importantly, a willingness to stand firm against aggression. There are clear indications that the current approach is not working in Ukraine’s favor. The best approach is to work hard at all types of diplomacy to ensure Ukraine can get the best deal in the current circumstances.
If there is no peace deal, there is also a chance for things to go bad for Ukraine. Without security guarantees, it will be very hard to prevent Russia’s offensive from continuing. Even with manpower issues, it may be necessary to consider a peace deal to prevent total defeat. With the current circumstances, it is not a matter of winning, but a matter of how much land and resources can be maintained while providing the best security to ensure that the nation is not destroyed. All of this may be a very difficult reality to accept.
Ultimately, Rutte’s pledge of NATO security for Ukraine is a significant statement, but it’s just the beginning of a long and complex journey. The true measure of its value will be in the actions that follow, in the concrete steps taken to ensure Ukraine’s safety and security. It’s a gamble, a calculated risk, and a critical test of the West’s resolve. Only time will tell if it proves to be a genuine shield or just a hollow promise.