Ukrainian Diplomat: Europeans Have An Important Point In Joint Statement
- 14.08.2025, 20:04
Only NATO membership will protect Ukraine from new Russian aggression.
For U.S. President Donald Trump's meeting with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, Kiev and European leaders declared a common line: "nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine," a sustainable cease-fire, tough security guarantees and increased sanctions if Moscow stalls.
President Vladimir Zelensky said about five principles and a "trilateral format of negotiations" with mandatory participation of Kiev. Donald Trump on possible guarantees outside NATO. What security guarantees for Ukraine could be realistic?
The Charter97.org website spoke with Ukrainian diplomat and political scientist, director of the Center for Defense Strategies Alexander Hara:
- The summit itself is very strange because it is based on the shaky foundation of a mistaken understanding that Russian Federation is supposedly ready to end fire or peace, as Steve Whitkoff stated after his communication with Vladimir Putin. This shows that it is unlikely that any really serious decisions are likely to be made that could bring the conflict to an end. The best that can be hoped for is a cease-fire in one area, such as an end to air strikes.
In fact, all these attitudes that Ukraine is trying to outline, and our European partners are supporting us in this, are more aimed at defining a general direction for possible negotiations.
If we are talking about security guarantees, we need to take into account that the Russian Federation is the largest nuclear-armed state. And although its demographic and economic potential is microscopic compared to European and American ones, it remains significant for Ukraine.
That is why the only guarantee of security against the next Russian aggression can only be NATO membership. NATO is not only a matter of collective security, but first of all a "nuclear umbrella": strategic - the United States, partially supported by Great Britain and France. Also tactical is Extended Defense: the presence of nuclear weapons on the territory of the five European countries - NATO members. And then there is the issue of conventional weapons, which would be necessary if the Russian Federation were to provoke NATO. Ukraine has no nuclear weapons or other means capable of deterring the Russian Federation. Generally, there are two concepts of deterrence:
The first is Deterrence by Denial. This is when you have the means to force the enemy to abandon an attack, realizing that absolutely unacceptable damage will be inflicted. This requires nuclear weapons and other means to deter Putin.
The second is Deterrence by Punishment. This is the presence of a defense force that will prevent an adversary from achieving tactical, operational, or strategic objectives in the event of aggression. It is assumed that an attack can happen, but the enemy realizes that you have enough opportunities to respond.
The thing that the Europeans, who do not want to aggravate relations with the Russian Federation, propose is to strengthen the AFU: arms supplies, training, and drills so that Ukraine will be ready for the next war. I wouldn't call it security guarantees - it's more like guarantees of defense assistance: weapons, intelligence, training, logistics, etc.
Ukraine understands this perfectly well. There is no special choice. We are grateful for help from the United States, from European and other partners. But we will not give up our aspiration to join NATO and get real security guarantees.
This, by the way, is enshrined in the joint statement of the British Prime Minister, the German Chancellor and the French President following their talks with the Ukrainian President. It says that Russia should not have the right to veto sovereign decisions of Ukraine, NATO and EU members.
So far, security guarantees are empty words. But what our partners are doing is important for strengthening Ukraine's defense capabilities.
- Chancellor Friedrich Merz insists: "first a sustainable ceasefire, and then everything else." What parameters of a ceasefire are acceptable to Kiev, lest the Kremlin use the pause to regroup troops and build up forces?"
- The logic was correctly laid down by the Americans back in March of this year, when they spoke of an unconditional and comprehensive ceasefire, followed by political negotiations to end the conflict. Putin refused. Ukraine had a temporary agreement to stop strikes on energy infrastructure and in the Black Sea.
Chancellor Merz is right, as are the rest of the Europeans: you can't discuss political parameters until there is a sustainable ceasefire. This is disadvantageous for Russia - it may agree to only partial elements of a ceasefire, but it will not stop the offensive in the East, where it has had tactical successes in recent weeks.
Today came the good news - report from the Azov brigade: they have actually bought the breakthrough in the Pokrovsky direction and are conducting a mop-up operation. It is important for Putin to show that Russia cannot be stopped and will advance despite losses. This demotivates Ukraine's partners and pushes Trump to the idea that Kiev may lose, which means it is worth agreeing to painful concessions.
If we talk about a ceasefire, it should be comprehensive and unconditional. That means no missile and drone strikes, no advances on the front lines, no blockade of Ukrainian exports from Black Sea ports.
I doubt Trump will be able to pressure Putin. He has limited options. After imposing 25% tariffs on goods from India, which is the second-largest buyer of Russian oil, Prime Minister Narendra Modi was the first to call his friend Putin. India is not about to give up cheap Russian oil, refining it and making money on resale.
The situation is even more complicated with China. Si Jinping and Donald Trump are scheduled to hold a summit in the near future, where they are expected to draw a line under the tariff war. If there is no agreement, Trump could use the Ukraine issue in trade measures against China. But it is unlikely to be large-scale: Beijing, as Foreign Minister Wang Yi has said, will not let Russia lose in this war. China has been on Russia's side from the start of the invasion, playing the role of a "pseudo-neutral" mediator. Now the masks have been dropped: Beijing openly supports Moscow in this genocidal war.
- The "Coalition of the Resolute" insists: no restrictions for the AFU, no Russian veto rights for Ukraine's accession to the EU and NATO. How can these demands be enshrined so that they cannot be circumvented under the pretext of "peaceful compromise"?"
- We cannot limit Donald Trump's sovereign right to make decisions. Europe and Ukraine can only convince him that the negative consequences for Ukraine, Europe and the US will be far greater than the possible benefits for him personally.
Today we see that the West has united and is helping Ukraine, but it is not enough to stop the war. At the same time, there is a consolidation of the countries of the global South, which for various reasons do not want to side with Ukraine and the West: historical grievances, distrust, etc.
The outcome of this war depends on whether the world will preserve the norms and principles of international law, which restrained global conflicts after World War II. If Ukraine is forced to relinquish territory and limit its ability to defend itself, it will lead to the destruction of the international system and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
States will realize: only the possession of nuclear weapons can deter aggression. And aggressors will realize that if they possess them, they can commit crimes and seize other people's lands with impunity, and then simply agree on "new borders".
Ukraine has long been trying to explain to its partners, including the countries of the global South, that it is in their interests to preserve the principles of international law. Otherwise, the world will become even more chaotic and aggressive, and this could lead to a new global conflict.