The signing ceremony at the Élysée Palace delivered what diplomacy often produces in the absence of strategic consensus: an architecture of commitment carefully engineered to appear robust while preserving maximum flexibility for the guarantors. France, Britain, and Ukraine formalized plans for a post-ceasefire multinational force, while senior American officials confirmed Washington would lead ceasefire monitoring. The language invoked solidarity and resolve. The substance reveals something more measured—a framework designed to project deterrence without triggering the automaticity of a formal defense pact.
This matters because the credibility of any security guarantee rests not on the words used to announce it, but on the mechanisms that would activate it under pressure. For Ukraine, the question is whether these commitments represent a meaningful evolution from the failed assurances of the Budapest Memorandum, or whether they constitute a more sophisticated version of the same bargain: promises calibrated to manage the conflict rather than decisively alter the balance of risk that Moscow calculates when it contemplates future aggression.
The structure of conditionality
The architecture unveiled in Paris is explicitly post-ceasefire. Military hubs, monitoring mechanisms, and multinational deployments are all predicated on a cessation of hostilities that does not yet exist and that Russia shows no inclination to accept on terms Ukraine can tolerate. This sequencing is not incidental. It places the entire framework in a conditional future tense, postponing the moment when commitments must be tested.
From a realist perspective, this conditionality serves multiple functions. For European capitals, it allows the projection of support without the immediate budgetary and political costs of large-scale deployments into an active combat zone. For Washington, leading monitoring rather than defense operations maintains American influence over the diplomatic process while avoiding treaty-level obligations that would require Senate ratification. For Kyiv, it provides a diplomatic asset—evidence of international backing—but one whose enforceability remains untested and theoretical.
The risk is that Moscow interprets this conditionality not as a guarantee to Ukraine, but as a signal of Western risk aversion. A commitment that only activates after a ceasefire can become, in adversarial hands, leverage to extract concessions during ceasefire negotiations. Russia can offer the ceasefire that unlocks the guarantees, but only on territorial or political terms that render those guarantees moot by legitimizing gains achieved through force.
Members are reading: How the distinction between monitoring and defense reveals the limits of American commitment and the credibility dilemma facing European guarantors.
The Budapest precedent and the durability of assurances
The shadow over this entire exercise is the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, in which Ukraine surrendered the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal in exchange for security assurances from Russia, the United States, and Britain. Those assurances proved non-binding when tested in 2014. The memorandum's failure was not a failure of goodwill, but a failure of mechanism. Assurances without enforcement are merely expressions of preference, and preferences change when costs rise.
The current framework attempts to address this by proposing actual military deployments rather than paper commitments. The presence of UK and French personnel, US-led monitoring, and multilateral coordination infrastructure represents a substantive upgrade. But the architecture still lacks the automaticity that transforms a commitment into a credible deterrent. The international system remains anarchic; states act on interests, not obligations, when those obligations become costly. A guarantee that requires a political decision to activate is not a guarantee—it is a commitment to consult.
The realist balance sheet
What does Paris reveal about the true interests at play? For Washington, it demonstrates continued leadership in European security while avoiding binding obligations that constrain strategic flexibility in an era of great power competition with China. For London and Paris, it reasserts European agency in managing continental security, particularly as questions about American reliability persist. For Kyiv, it secures diplomatic recognition of its security needs, but not the automatic defense commitment that would categorically deter Russian revanchism.
The architecture of deterrence is not built on declarations of intent. It is built on the credible threat of unacceptable cost, and credibility derives from capability combined with the demonstrated will to use it. The Paris pact provides capability—forces, infrastructure, monitoring—but will remains conditional, subject to future political decisions under future circumstances. Whether this is sufficient to stabilize a post-ceasefire environment depends less on the strength of the guarantees than on Moscow's assessment of whether violating them would trigger consequences it cannot afford. That assessment, ultimately, will be made not in Paris, but in the Kremlin.
Subscribe to our free newsletter to unlock direct links to all sources used in this article.
We believe you deserve to verify everything we write. That's why we meticulously document every source.
