As Ukraine demands ironclad security guarantees, the US distances itself while Europe scrambles for a response. Will any nation step up

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has spent the past week relentlessly pushing for security guarantees in meetings with Western leaders, but his pleas appear to be falling on deaf ears. During a tense Oval Office exchange with US President Donald Trump and Vice-President JD Vance, Zelensky pressed for assurances that Russia would not violate any future ceasefire—only to be met with dismissal.

Trump, brushing aside Zelensky’s concerns, downplayed the importance of security agreements. “Security is so easy, that’s about 2% of the problem,” Trump stated bluntly. Shortly after, he paused US military aid to Ukraine, sending shockwaves through Kyiv and European capitals alike. Trump has suggested that American companies exploiting Ukraine’s rare-earth minerals would deter Russian aggression, though history offers little support for this theory. US companies operated in Ukraine before Russia’s 2022 invasion, and it did nothing to stop Moscow’s advance.

A Divided West

While Trump shifts responsibility to Europe, European leaders scramble to assess their options. At a high-level meeting in London, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer described the moment as a “once-in-a-generation” test of European security, urging the formation of a “coalition of the willing” to back Ukraine. French President Emmanuel Macron also expressed willingness to deploy peacekeeping forces but acknowledged that maintaining a truce across Ukraine’s vast 1,000-kilometre frontline would be “very difficult.”

Yet, even among willing nations, unity is lacking. Outgoing German Chancellor Olaf Scholz cautioned that Europe was not “sufficiently prepared” for the burden of securing Ukraine. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni flatly ruled out any deployment of Italian troops. Despite Starmer’s optimism that other countries will contribute, few have come forward publicly.

A Peacekeeping Gamble

Even if a European-led force materialises, major logistical and strategic hurdles remain. Experts suggest an effective mission would require at least 100,000 troops, a nearly impossible commitment given Europe’s existing military constraints. For context, NATO’s peacekeeping force in Kosovo in 1999 consisted of 48,000 troops—and Ukraine is more than 50 times larger than Kosovo.

Security analysts warn that deploying a weak peacekeeping force without clear rules of engagement would be disastrous. “A ‘bluff and pray’ approach that deploys too few troops and simply hopes Russia won’t test it would be irresponsible,” wrote Claudia Major and Aldo Kleemann of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs.

Another challenge is technological warfare. The ongoing conflict has shown how drones and precision-guided missiles have transformed modern battlefields. A peacekeeping force would require sophisticated counter-drone technology, electronic warfare capabilities, and intelligence infrastructure just to survive in contested zones.

The Unanswered Question

Despite growing urgency, Ukraine still lacks concrete commitments. Zelensky insists that only robust, enforceable guarantees can prevent future Russian aggression. “We need very specific security guarantees and very specific providers of these guarantees,” he stated in London, warning that anything less would leave Ukraine vulnerable to another attack.

As time runs out, the West faces a defining moment. Will Europe step up and form a credible security umbrella for Ukraine? Or will the US and its allies leave Kyiv to defend itself, hoping for the best in the face of Russian expansionism? One thing is clear—if Ukraine does not receive the guarantees it seeks, the consequences will reverberate far beyond its borders.