The implications of a ceasefire in Ukraine for European security

The war in Ukraine is approaching its fourth year, with an enormous toll in human lives and resources. Western allies have gradually allowed Ukraine to deploy modern missile technology across the Russian border. While this escalation has inflicted damage on Russia, it appears to be too little, too late. However, it might pressure Moscow to come to the negotiating table and consider a ceasefire.

Fatigue is beginning to set in across the West, leading to a subtle paradigm shift toward negotiations with Kyiv. Until now, the position has been that negotiations would only occur after Russia had been forced or had voluntarily withdrawn from all occupied territories, returning to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders.

A new perspective is emerging. Without abandoning long-term territorial claims, President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has called on Western allies to provide NATO protection for the areas of Ukraine under Kyiv’s control, signaling his willingness to delay reclaiming Russian-occupied territories. Speaking to British television channel Sky News, President Zelenskiy said, “If we want to stop the hot phase of the war, we need to take under the NATO umbrella the territory of Ukraine that we have under our control.” He added that Ukraine could get back occupied territories “in a diplomatic way.”

This marks a significant step toward negotiating a ceasefire along the current front line. Territory gained in Russia’s Kursk region could potentially serve as a bargaining chip. The key question remains: What form would a NATO umbrella take? A simple security guarantee might be insufficient, while full NATO membership could face resistance from some European members.

While Russia is currently weakened by the war in Ukraine, it will recover sooner rather than later.

 

United States President-elect Donald Trump has already nominated Keith Kellogg as a future special envoy for Ukraine. Mr. Trump has stated that he will quickly bring an end to the fighting in Ukraine through negotiations. Given Kyiv’s heavy reliance on U.S. support, Mr. Zelenskiy’s readiness to negotiate sends a friendly signal to the incoming White House administration.

However, Russia must also be brought to the negotiating table. The future U.S. administration will need to determine what means it can use to compel Moscow – and at what cost. A ceasefire based on the current front line would represent a de facto land gain for Russia, even if not formally recognized under international law. But will this be enough? The broader question lies in the nature of the proposed security guarantees.

What is indisputable is that Ukraine’s and Europe’s freedom and security are heavily dependent on Washington and, crucially, on the occupant of the White House. Despite some statements aimed at encouraging Europeans to take more responsibility for their own security, Donald Trump is well aware that he cannot concede too much to President Vladimir Putin. His administration is unlikely to yield on key issues.

However, this long-term dependence on U.S. support is a critical vulnerability for Europe. Moscow has, understandably, pivoted toward the East, focusing on Asia. From Russia’s perspective, this shift is logical, but it does not rule out the possibility of future claims or even territorial ambitions toward its western neighbors.

While Russia is currently weakened by the war in Ukraine, it will recover sooner rather than later. European NATO members now face a narrow window of opportunity to strengthen their deterrence capabilities. This will be essential not only in managing relations with the East but also in bolstering Europe’s global standing, securing borders and protecting critical supply lines.

This comment was originally published here: https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/ukraine-ceasefire/