Kiev’s allies are trying to find a way to protect Ukraine from yet another Russian attack in the event of a peacekeeping agreement – but it is not close to finding a solution.

Despite Donald Trump’s pressure, Ukrainian President Volodimir Zelenski is clear that his country will agree on a peace agreement with Russia only if it is supported by steadfast security guarantees.

Trump told Zelenski and European leaders at their meeting on Monday that Ukraine would protect NATO “Type Article 5”, but failed any details.

On Tuesday, the “alliance of willing”, of the Kiev allies, addressed the issue, while the US Secretary of State Mark Rubio leads a committee With Ukrainians and European officials to form security guarantees.

‘Alliance of uninhabited’

The planning groups meet “in the coming days to further enhance plans to provide strong security guarantees and prepare for the development of a” reassurance force “in the event of an end of hostilities,” said UK Prime Minister Kirm.

It is a huge problem -and a problem that Kiev’s allies have been dealing with many times over the last three years without ever coming to an answer.

The most obvious solution – and the one that really wants Kiev – is to allow Ukraine to join NATO, where it will be protected by the common defense pact of Article 5 of the Alliance. But the United States (with the silent support of some European countries) have ruled this possibility.

The need to organize a business in this way causes huge complications. Which country would send troops? What would be their development conditions? How would they react in case of attack? Who would pay?

On Tuesday it became clear that the United States would not develop soldiers in Ukraine.

“I can tell you that he has permanently excluded the presence of soldiers on the ground,” White House spokesman Caroline Levit told reporters.

The US president was clear about who he should bear the weight. “We have European nations and they will prepare it,” Trump said in a Fox News appearance, adding: “France and Germany, some of them (the states), the United Kingdom. They want to have, you know, forces on the ground. “

French President Emmanuel Macron emphasized the issue earlier that day, telling French television that Europe was ready to develop “assurances” – British, French, German, Turkish and others – to carry out “in the air, at sea and in the sea”.

The fake words the big ones

But behind the big words there is a chaotic reality.

Despite all the discussions on “forces on the ground”, the exact form of Ukraine’s security guarantees remains indefinite – and this lack of clarity sows confusion between Kiev’s allies.

A European security official warned that any force would need a “battle order” at least to defend it in the event of an attack by Russia – but stressed that such a mission would not be responsible for the imposition of peace.

This, the official said, would remain the work of the Ukrainian army. French officials also warn against “discussing a subject that exists only in theory”.

The lack of specialization also reveals the weaknesses of those who are more willing to lead. Macron and Starmer – and the two nuclear leaders with seats at the UN Security Council – want to show that they continue to play an important role on the world stage. However, both face political and economic obstacles that fuel skepticism about their countries’ ability to send forces to Ukraine.

‘Politically weak’

“If one takes into account how politically weak Macron is and Starmer, it is not easy to see how this plan will evolve,” said one EU diplomat. “It’s not an easy financial time.”

Germany remains in a dilemma. Social Democrat Legislator Andreas Schwartz, responsible for the parliamentary supervision of the country’s defense budget, stressed the boundaries. “This is a decision that Parliament must make”he noted in Politico, stressing that military development is not an executive decision.

Beyond that, the German army is very small and the refreshed flow of money in defense is very recent to allow great growth to the east. Even sending 5,000 soldiers to permanent mission to Lithuania is burdened by Bundeswehr (German Army)

‘We just don’t have staff for a big quote’, Said Schwartz. “Even a little development would be a challenge.”

Turkey could play a role but …

Turkey – with its great army and its experience in the Black Sea – could play a decisive role. However, the political situation is complicated, as Greece and Cyprus are cautious about allowing Ankara to allow access to EU funds for military purposes.

“It’s too early to think of such a development,” Selim Genra, a former Turkish ambassador to the EU, observed in Politico. And Ankara warned, will demand something in return for. “As for Quid Pro Quo, it will still be difficult to overcome the EU’s obstacles to defense funds. I am sure that the EU will find a way to prevent Turkey’s access. “

Poland, which now has the EU largest army, excludes the mission of troops to Ukraine, though it says it will help any mission in the east.

“Poland has its own strategic dilemma because it has borders with Russia and Belarus, so it cannot weaken the forces needed to prevent an attack,” He declared a senior Polish official, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

‘Danger of War’

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Melloni is also cautious about sending soldiers to Ukraine and has disagreed with Macron, stressing that it is more prudent to offer Ukraine a defensive pact than troops who could risk her.

“If one of our soldiers died, would we pretend that nothing happened or should we react? Because if we react, it is obvious that NATO should do it. And then we can very well activate the clause [του Άρθρου 5]’allegedly warned Meloni.

… and Moscow says “no”

There is a reason to be careful. Despite the warm climate at Vladimir Putin’s friendly summit with Trump in Alaska, Moscow is categorically opposed to the development of NATO troops in Ukraine.

“We reiterate our long -standing position to categorically reject any scenario on the development of NATO military extracts in Ukraine, as this risks uncontrolled escalation with unpredictable consequences,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Maria Zaharova said.

However, Ukraine has been severely affected by declarations not supported by soldiers from countries that are willing to put their lives at risk. The 1994 Budapest Memorandum saw the US and the United Kingdom committed to security guarantees in exchange for the abandonment of Ukraine’s nuclear weapons, followed by numerous conditions with Russia that were all violated.

For Kiev, the debate on security guarantees is sad. Already in 2023, before the NATO summit in Vilnius, the same arguments were discussed – and the same questions remained unanswered.

“Sometimes,” said a senior Eastern Europe diplomat who kept his anonymity, “It’s hard to understand what we’re talking about.”

The senior Polish official was even more raw, arguing that the whole debate is premature: “Nothing will happen because the battles do not stop,” he said. “The Americans seem reluctant to reach the extremes with Russia and Europeans continue to support Ukraine, so we have a deadlock.”