Q&A with Steven Pifer
On September 4, French President Emmanuel Macron declared that leaders from 26 nations had pledged to provide postwar security guarantees for Ukraine. Steven Pifer breaks down the commitment and what it means for the future of Ukraine.
The “coalition of the willing” met in Paris last week, agreeing to boost aid to Ukraine. What are the key components in the pledge? Will the support be enough to reassure Ukraine while deterring Russian escalation?
President Macron said 26 countries have pledged to contribute troops—ground, sea and air elements—that would, among other things, make up a “reassurance” force to deploy to Ukraine once a ceasefire or peace agreement is concluded. The force would signal the commitment of the participants to Ukraine’s security. Many details remain to be worked out, including where the force would deploy in Ukraine and its specific missions. A key question is what support Washington would provide to “backstop” the force (see below).
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy took part in the meeting and expressed satisfaction with the general framework. He noted that the “central element of security guarantees” would be a strong Ukrainian military well-equipped with modern weapons and capable of deterring another Russian attack. Indeed, that could be Kyiv’s best security guarantee. Questions of how to provide Ukraine with the arms and funding to maintain such a force remain to be agreed.
The guarantees include potential deployment of European troops to Ukraine, a significant departure from past agreements. Why the change in calculus, especially considering Russian President Vladimir Putin’s threat of retaliation on European soldiers on the ground?
European members of NATO as well as the United States have been reluctant to deploy troops to Ukraine while Ukraine and Russia were engaged in active combat, concerned that NATO could be pulled into direct conflict with Russia. Beginning last year, however, the British and French began discussions regarding a possible force that might deploy to Ukraine once the fighting ends. The idea of a “coalition of the willing” arose because neither NATO nor the European Union would be able to achieve a consensus among all members to deploy such a force.
Putin has threatened that European soldiers in Ukraine would be “legitimate targets” for attack, “especially during the ongoing hostilities.” However, the Europeans seem to have concluded that, without solid security guarantees, it will be very difficult for Ukraine to agree to a settlement, for fear that Russia might simply regenerate its military and attack again at a future point.
Security guarantees for Ukraine should not be negotiated with Russia. Presumably, if the Kremlin concludes that it cannot achieve its goals on the battlefield and that the costs of continuing to try are becoming too high, Russian readiness to accept a ceasefire or peace settlement in which Western countries provide Ukraine with security guarantees might change.
What is the role of the United States in these guarantees and how might its involvement, or lack thereof, influence the commitment of other countries?
British and French officials made clear early on that their plan to deploy a “coalition of the willing” force required a U.S. “backstop." They emphasized this after Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth stated that the U.S. military would not participate in any peacekeeping force and that such a force would not come under the protection of NATO’s Article 5 (which establishes the principle of collective defense according to which an attack against one ally is considered an attack against all).
However, in August, President Trump said Washington would help the Europeans and suggested U.S. air power was on offer. U.S. and European officials later reportedly were discussing support for the European force, including U.S. intelligence and surveillance assets. The discussions address the kinds of support that Britain and France hope the United States would provide, most importantly air power should the force come under attack. However, it appears that no final decisions or commitments have been made.
Following the past weekend’s Russian bombing attacks against Ukraine—the largest mass aerial attack since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, which among other targets struck the building housing the Cabinet of Ministers—a ceasefire, much less a peace agreement, seems farther away than ever. The question before the United States and Europe now is whether they are willing to impose further costs on Russia (sanctions and/or confiscation of the frozen Russian central bank reserves) in order to compel it to stop its attacks and bring it to the table.
