European leaders and NATO chief Mark Rutte are pressing for binding, long-term security guarantees for Ukraine as part of a prospective peace or cease-fire framework.
The concept under discussion is an “Article 5-like” pledge—short of NATO membership—that would commit a coalition of countries to Ukraine’s defense.
Kyiv and Western capitals are still hashing out who would provide what (troops, air and naval presence, intelligence, funding) and how the U.S. would be involved.
Russia says it must be party to any talks on guarantees for Ukraine; Western officials say the shape of guarantees is for Kyiv and its partners to decide.
The U.S. has ruled out sending ground troops; President Donald Trump says Washington could assist “by air.”
After a week of hurried diplomacy and two high-level summits on the war in Ukraine, Europe is moving to lock in security commitments designed to deter any renewed Russian attack—while the details remain deliberately sparse. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, who helped sell the idea alongside European leaders during meetings with President Donald Trump in Washington, carried that message to Kyiv on Friday, outlining a two-layered approach to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy: first, a stronger Ukrainian military after a peace deal or long-term cease-fire; second, formal guarantees from Europe and the United States to backstop that peace.
“The first layer has to be for Ukrainian armed forces to be as strong as possible,” Rutte said, adding that a second layer of guarantees from Western partners would follow. The push reflects a shared assessment in European capitals that any settlement without credible enforcement will tempt Moscow to regroup and try again.
A plan without public blueprints—yet
What those guarantees look like is the subject of intense, mostly closed-door work in Washington and Brussels. U.S. and European military chiefs, including Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Dan Caine and NATO counterparts, have been weighing options to translate political intent into an operational plan. Retired Adm. James Foggo, a former NATO naval commander, described a “negotiated solution” on a fast timeline, noting that uniformed planners are under pressure to surface viable packages that allies can sign onto.
For now, the concept is intentionally framed as “Article 5-like”—a nod to NATO’s collective defense clause—without being Article 5 itself. The emerging model is a “coalition of the willing” whose members would pledge defined forms of support if Russia violates a settlement: from rapid reinforcement and air policing to maritime patrols, intelligence sharing, training, logistics, and possibly pre-positioned stocks. Unlike NATO membership, the commitment would be coalition-based, not treaty-automatic, and could be tailored by country.
Rose Gottemoeller, NATO’s former deputy secretary-general, emphasized that the precise resemblance to Article 5 is a matter for negotiation among Ukraine and its partners. It is “not really” for Russia to dictate, she argued, even if Moscow seeks to limit Western involvement.
Kyiv’s view: political momentum first, specifics to follow
Zelenskyy welcomed the political signal from Washington and Rutte’s visit but cautioned that it is “too early” to specify who would provide troops, who would contribute intelligence, who would be present at sea, and who would be in the air. “The infrastructure will be written down and written out,” he said, suggesting a phased process in which allies declare roles once the framework is finalized. For Zelenskyy, front-loading guarantees serve a domestic purpose too: it creates leverage to “sell” any peace package to Ukrainians after years of sacrifice.
Retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, the U.S. special envoy to Ukraine, downplayed Moscow’s objections as “just noise,” saying heads of state will ultimately decide the contours of the force and guarantees. Rutte, for his part, told Zelenskyy the arrangement should serve as a backstop so that in any direct talks with Vladimir Putin, Kyiv has “the unmistakable force of Ukraine’s friends behind you, ensuring that Russia will uphold any deal and will never again attempt to take one square kilometer of Ukraine.”
Russia balks—and seeks a say
Moscow is already signaling resistance. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov insisted that any guarantees “against Russia” must include Russia at the table, warning that the Kremlin would not accept a collective security deal negotiated without it. That stance, Western officials say, is designed to preserve a veto over how far Kyiv’s partners can go.
Politically, the choreography also serves Washington and European capitals: by building momentum around a settlement architecture, they increase the reputational cost for Putin if he obstructs progress, while reassuring war-weary publics that any deal would be enforced.
Why it matters
- Deterrence after the guns go quiet: Previous cease-fires in Ukraine failed without credible enforcement. Defined, resourced guarantees are meant to deter quick relapse into conflict.
- A bridge short of NATO membership: With NATO accession off the table for now, an Article 5-like coalition offers Kyiv protection without the unanimous treaty commitments and escalation risks of full membership.
- Clarity for industry and mobilization: If allies commit to concrete roles (air patrols, ISR, training lanes, ammunition pipelines), defense ministries and industry can plan multi-year production and pre-positioning. Foggo noted that once politicians decide, forces can be generated “pretty quickly.”
What an “Article 5-like” guarantee could include (and how it would differ)
- Trigger: Not automatic treaty language; likely a political pledge that a breach (e.g., missile strikes, territorial incursion) would prompt specified responses.
- Menu of commitments: Air defense coverage; maritime presence in the Black Sea region; ISR/intelligence fusion; rapid training and equipping; cyber defense; economic penalties that snap in automatically.
- Burden-sharing: Countries opt into roles that match capabilities and politics; the U.S. role may emphasize air and intelligence support rather than ground deployments.
- Legal form: Political declarations or executive agreements, possibly bundled with bilateral accords, rather than a new treaty requiring ratification.
The U.S. position
Trump has rejected sending American ground forces and continues to oppose Ukraine’s entry into NATO at this stage, but has said the U.S. “would help them … by air.” That implies potential U.S. participation in air policing, air defense integration, ISR flows, or long-range strike enablers—contingent on how the framework is written.
The sequencing question
Allies appear to favor front-loading the security mechanism before moving to territory questions and a high-stakes meeting involving Putin and Zelenskyy—Trump’s publicly stated objective. The logic: guarantees first create leverage for Kyiv at the table and reassure Ukrainians that any concessions will be protected.
What’s next
- Drafting the framework: Expect negotiators to define the trigger conditions, list of participating states, and tasking by domain (air, maritime, cyber, intel).
- National declarations: Capitals will line up what they can pledge now versus later—and what requires legislative sign-off.
- Russian response: Moscow will test unity with demands to be included; Western governments will decide how, if at all, Russian input is entertained without granting a veto.
- Force generation: If a deal advances, NATO and partner staffs can move to identify units, timelines, and logistics hubs. As Foggo put it, “Uniform forces will follow the policy.”
Reader Q&A (user-intent)
What happened?
Europe and NATO’s secretary-general pressed for a formal, coalition-based security guarantee for Ukraine as part of any peace or long cease-fire. The U.S. is involved in shaping options but has ruled out ground troops.
Why does it matter?
Without credible enforcement, any deal risks unraveling. “Article 5-like” guarantees aim to deter renewed Russian attacks while stopping short of full NATO membership.
Is the U.S. in or out?
Washington’s role is still being defined. The White House has signaled help “by air,” suggesting support in the air and intelligence domains rather than boots on the ground.
Does Russia get a say?
Moscow insists it must. Western officials argue the form of guarantees is for Ukraine and its partners to decide, even if Russia is a party to wider peace talks.
When could forces arrive?
If political leaders agree, militaries can generate and stage forces relatively quickly. The timeline depends on the final scope of commitments and domestic approvals in each country.
Bottom line: Europe is racing to turn political momentum into a tangible deterrent for Ukraine—one strong enough to make any peace stick, flexible enough to win broad participation, and credible enough to shape Moscow’s calculus. The architecture is still being built, but the direction of travel is clear.