NATO’s Article 5 guarantees will not work for Ukraine: why?
НАТО. Фото - Reuters
American politician Philip Gordon said that NATO’s Article 5 security guarantees cannot be a reliable safeguard for Ukraine. According to him, Ukraine should focus on practical defense tools, not formal promises.
This is reported by The New York Times .
Philip Gordon, who previously served as national security advisor to Vice President Kamala Harris, analyzed negotiations between the United States and Ukraine regarding possible principles for a peace agreement with Russia.
He noted that the discussed format of the agreement involves Ukraine’s renunciation of Donbas in exchange for security guarantees from the United States, which would make new aggression from Russia impossible.
“But this is a strategically misguided approach, as any security guarantee provided by US President Donald Trump will not be credible,” said Philip Gordon.
According to him, to truly deter Russia, it is more appropriate for Ukraine to demand specific self-defense measures, rather than political declarations, which, in his opinion, the Russian leadership will not believe.
Gordon also emphasized that doubts about the implementation of such guarantees are related to the previous position of Donald Trump, who did not demonstrate readiness for direct military confrontation with Russia even in the event of serious threats.
“There is no reason to believe that a formal commitment on paper will force Trump to act differently,” Philip Gordon noted.
He separately drew attention to the fact that even guarantees under NATO’s Article 5, according to Trump, depend on the allies’ fulfillment of financial obligations, which calls into question their unconditionality.
The politician also commented on the draft agreement, in which security guarantees would only apply in the event of a “significant, deliberate, and sustained” attack by Russia.
“Such provisions allow for the avoidance of guarantees in the event of a new attack that is deemed minor or temporary,” said Philip Gordon.
In this context, he considers the exchange of strategic territories for such guarantees to be a naive and irresponsible step.
Instead, Gordon called for a focus on material security factors, including Ukraine’s access to frozen Russian assets, new weapons packages from the United States, including Patriot systems, F-16 fighters, long-range missiles, and ammunition.
He separately mentioned the possibility of returning the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant to Ukraine’s control and attracting American investment as an additional element of deterrence against Russia.
According to him, negotiations on security guarantees are still far from complete, and Ukraine should focus on solutions that actually increase its defense capabilities, rather than formal promises.
By the way, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that he had proposed to US President Donald Trump to provide Ukraine with security guarantees for a period of 30–50 years . According to him, the parties have now agreed on guarantees for 15 years with the possibility of extension.
As you know,the meeting between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy ended at the private Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida. After this meeting, a final press conference was held.
It is worth adding that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, on the eve of his meeting with US President Donald Trump, stated that important decisions could be made by the end of the year . According to him, this depends on the position of Ukraine’s international partners and pressure on Russia.
Also follow “Pryamim” on Facebook , Twitter , Telegram , and Instagram .