By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In recent remarks, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy revealed Ukraine is pursuing legally binding security guarantees, including an “Article 5-like” commitment from the United States backed by Congress, as a compromise to deter further Russian aggression. The move away from NATO membership, previously sought after, comes as some partners, including the United States, did not support this course of action. Zelenskyy is now focused on bilateral guarantees with Washington, along with guarantees from European partners, Canada, and Japan, while also discussing a 20-point framework plan with US and European officials in Berlin that would conclude with a ceasefire. He emphasized that these guarantees must be binding and clearly define how the US would respond to any future Russian aggression.
Read the original article here
Zelenskyy Seeks US Congress-Backed, Article 5-Style Security Guarantee to Prevent Russia’s Next Attack is a strategic move, plain and simple. Understanding the game being played is crucial. A ceasefire or lasting peace isn’t going to come about without some serious commitment, including potentially allied troops securing the borders. Right now, Russia has little incentive to stop its ambitions in Ukraine. Zelenskyy, knowing the players involved, is navigating a complex situation with precision. He understands that written words alone aren’t enough, especially with the potential for shifting political landscapes. He’s cleverly trying to get a security guarantee that carries real weight, supported by a part of the government less prone to political about-faces.
This approach offers multiple advantages. It either secures a meaningful guarantee or it shifts the blame if a peace deal falters. It allows Zelenskyy to frame any roadblocks to peace as being caused by the US, not Ukraine, which could be a significant strategic advantage. It also creates a window of opportunity to wait out the political winds, hoping for a more favorable outcome after the midterms. It’s a smart plan, considering the potential for US political turmoil to derail any agreements. He is likely well aware of the limitations of relying on the European Union to provide this security. Ultimately, Zelenskyy understands that the US is the only power capable of deterring Russia.
However, the path is fraught with pitfalls. The core issue is the potential for the US, especially under certain administrations, to find loopholes or ways to undermine any guarantee. A security guarantee is only as good as the commitment behind it, and the US’s track record isn’t exactly stellar when it comes to honoring agreements. There’s a valid argument that an EU-backed agreement might be more reliable. A smaller, but committed, force is often more effective than a larger, hesitant one. Plus, the US is already stretched thin, facing potential conflicts in multiple theaters.
One of the biggest concerns centers around how much trust can be placed in a US-backed guarantee in the current climate. Some people are skeptical that the US would uphold its commitments, particularly with certain political figures potentially influencing the situation. There’s a real fear that the US might be playing a dangerous game, potentially creating a situation where the guarantee could lead to a war with Russia.
Another complicating factor is the timing. While the debate over guarantees continues, Russia could exploit any perceived weakness and launch another attack. Some argue that the US and Europe must be willing to call Russia’s bluff on using nuclear weapons to truly deter further aggression. The idea of relying on the US to defend Ukraine might seem absurd to some. Others are more optimistic, pointing out the existing bipartisan support for Ukraine in the US House of Representatives. However, even if Congress approves a guarantee, the potential for future administrations to disregard it remains a significant concern.
The fundamental question boils down to whether the US is prioritizing idealism (supporting a good cause) or realism (acting in its own best interests). Realistically, the US’s commitment to Ukraine, as evidenced by the Budapest Memorandum, is shaky. While that agreement promised assistance if Ukraine were threatened with nuclear weapons, it offered no real consequences for Russia, which has a permanent veto in the UN Security Council. Ultimately, what matters is having a guarantee that Russia will respect. And at this point in time, that is a question mark.
Looking at it strategically, Zelenskyy’s efforts are about forcing the US’s hand and putting the onus on them to act. A strong, secure Ukraine benefits the US by strengthening NATO’s eastern flank and allowing it to rebalance its forces toward the Pacific and China. Zelenskyy understands the need for a strong deterrent to prevent future aggression. However, the path ahead is far from clear, and the outcome remains uncertain.