By John Q. Hosedrinker 
If Ukraine’s NATO aspirations are off the table, the EU must provide robust security guarantees, according to High Representative Kaja Kallas. Kallas highlighted Russia’s history of aggression, emphasizing the need for Ukraine to receive assurances given its vulnerability. She stressed that Russia, having not been attacked by any of the nations it has invaded, does not need security guarantees. This emphasizes the urgent need for comprehensive security support for Ukraine.
Read the original article here
Kaja Kallas: EU Obliged to Offer Real Security Guarantees to Ukraine
The central idea here is straightforward: the European Union has a responsibility to provide Ukraine with tangible security guarantees. The sentiment is that while the discussion of Ukrainian membership in NATO might be off the table, the EU’s role in ensuring Ukraine’s safety and stability becomes even more critical. It is not just about what is legally mandated, but rather what is morally and strategically necessary. We have to consider what these “security guarantees” would actually look like in practice.
A critical question is, what would these guarantees entail? Would they mean a commitment to send EU troops to Ukraine if Russia invades again? If so, why has this not already been done? The frustrating reality is that the EU often seems to be making the same promises week after week, without concrete action. There’s a real worry that the EU is all talk and no action. This feeling of stagnation and lack of decisiveness is a constant frustration.
The core function of security guarantees is to deter future aggression. The goal is to make the risk/benefit analysis for any potential attacker unfavorable enough to prevent an invasion in the first place. The prevailing view is that if Russia had known in advance the potential consequences of their 2022 invasion, it might not have happened. In essence, security guarantees aren’t just about fighting a war; they are about preventing one. They are about creating a framework where any attack is understood internationally as an attack on the guarantor states, changing the rules of engagement and the consequences involved.
This is not a matter of a single, simple plan. Many scenarios can be explored: bilateral security pacts or broader commitments from the EU and Western allies could be the foundation, especially if NATO membership is blocked for political reasons. The interesting part is not just the guarantees themselves, but what form they take. This can reshape European security cooperation long term.
It is worth noting the limits and complexities of this endeavor. One of the primary things that should be kept in mind is that the security of a smaller state does not come from creating threats to major powers. The other side of that coin is that creating threats can bring a swift and forceful response.
There is also a strong sense of skepticism. Some believe that these security guarantees are unlikely to change the fundamental reluctance of many EU member states to directly confront Russia. This caution is understandable, particularly given the implications of a direct military confrontation with a nuclear power. The issue of whether the guarantees will be honored, and what actions will be taken, is at the forefront of the conversation.
The practical effects of these guarantees are also worth considering. This may include military and financial aid, alongside the use of sanctions. This existing support would be essential to deterring attacks, and ensure any military action has been already considered, preventing an escalation in the situation.
It’s about defining the terms of the war. Properly structured security guarantees would clarify that the decision to escalate the conflict rests with the aggressor, shifting the burden of responsibility. As Biden has explained, closing Ukraine’s airspace requires difficult decisions; security guarantees could make these difficult calls far more straightforward and defensible.
Finally, the question remains: if Russia were to attack, would the US and Europe go to war? Or would they continue with their current strategy? This is at the heart of the debate. Whether the EU is truly willing to stand by its commitments. The point is to make the walk instead of talking the talk.