President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Sunday that Ukraine is willing to abandon its NATO accession ambitions in exchange for legally binding security guarantees from the United States, European partners, Canada, Japan, and others. The statement, made ahead of critical talks in Berlin with U.S. envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, frames the compromise as a pathway to end the war with Russia. Zelenskyy emphasized Ukraine seeks guarantees ensuring Russia "will not return" and a settlement offering a "dignified" peace. The proposal arrives as Washington presses for a swift end to the conflict while European allies work to refine elements that protect sovereignty norms and harden what previous Crisis Zone coverage has termed "sovereignty guardrails".
The shift marks a significant tactical retreat from Kyiv's longstanding insistence on NATO membership as the only credible security architecture. Yet it immediately raises the central question dominating European defense circles: can "Article 5-like" security guarantees that exclude NATO deliver credible deterrence, or will they replicate the failure of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which traded Ukrainian nuclear weapons for assurances that proved unenforceable when Russia annexed Crimea in 2014?
The institutional gap between guarantees and membership
NATO remains the gold standard for security guarantees because of institutional mechanics that bilateral or coalition arrangements struggle to replicate. Article 5's mutual defense obligation is embedded in ratified treaties, backed by integrated command structures, automatic trigger mechanisms, and enforceable burden-sharing frameworks. U.S. bilateral security treaties with Ukraine would require Senate ratification—a process that poses significant domestic political hurdles and offers no certainty of passage.
The Kyiv Security Compact and G7 Vilnius Declaration established long-term bilateral commitments that improved Ukraine's resilience and defense industrial capacity. Yet these instruments explicitly stopped short of mutual defense treaties, leaving them vulnerable to the same enforceability problems that plagued the Budapest Memorandum: political assurances without automatic triggers or legal obligations to intervene. As CFR analysts Eric Ciaramella and Eric Green noted in their February 2025 report, NATO membership is the most credible long-term guarantee precisely because it eliminates discretion about whether to respond to aggression.
Ukraine's proposal to accept non-NATO guarantees implicitly acknowledges the political reality that membership is only feasible post-cease-fire or armistice, when alliance consensus can form around integrating stable borders. The question is whether interim guarantees can be sufficiently robust to bridge that gap without creating a security vacuum Russia could exploit.
Berlin diplomacy and Moscow's preconditions
The timing of Zelenskyy's statement reflects the diplomatic choreography now underway in Berlin, where U.S. envoys are meeting Ukrainian and European leaders to align a peace framework. Washington's reported draft outline included abandonment of NATO ambitions, territorial concessions, and limits on Ukraine's armed forces—elements that European allies have been working to refine to avoid rewarding aggression. Crisis Zone previously reported on how Washington's leaked Ukraine framework collides with NATO doctrine and alliance cohesion, creating tension between speed and sustainability.
Moscow's preconditions remain maximalist. Russia demands Ukraine withdraw from parts of Donetsk still under Kyiv's control and abandon NATO entirely. Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov warned of "very strong objections" to current proposals and suggested Russian police and National Guard forces would remain even in a demilitarized zone—positions Kyiv is unlikely to accept. The gap between these opening positions and any viable settlement remains vast, particularly on questions of territorial integrity and sovereignty that go to the core of European security architecture.
The battlefield context underscores the urgency. Ukraine's Air Force reported that in the past week Russia launched over 1,500 attack drones, nearly 900 guided aerial bombs, and 46 missiles, causing large power outages. Russia's Ministry of Defense claims it downed 235 Ukrainian drones overnight. The intensity of operations suggests both sides are seeking positional advantage ahead of potential cease-fire negotiations.
Members are reading: How the Budapest Memorandum's failure and Istanbul's collapsed framework define the institutional requirements for credible guarantees today.
What credible guarantees require
Ukraine's willingness to defer NATO membership may prove a pragmatic bridge if—and only if—the guarantees are legally binding, trigger-based, and backed by real capabilities. The NATO Warsaw and Washington Summits affirmed Ukraine's "irreversible path" to membership and reduced procedural hurdles, eliminating the Membership Action Plan requirement established at Vilnius in 2023. That political commitment provides a long-term destination. The challenge is ensuring interim arrangements do not become permanent substitutes that lack enforcement teeth.
European allies will press for explicit, unambiguous language on sovereignty and territorial integrity in any joint framework. Ambiguity on these points risks legitimizing territorial seizures and setting a precedent that undermines the rules-based order NATO was designed to defend. Equally critical is whether Russia's demand set—territorial withdrawals, NATO abandonment, and internal security presence—shifts in response to European refinements, or whether Moscow views diplomatic engagement primarily as a mechanism to consolidate gains and fracture alliance cohesion.
The Berlin talks will test whether guarantees can be constructed with sufficient automaticity, capability, and legal force to substitute for Article 5, or whether they will replicate the hollow assurances that failed Ukraine three decades ago. The answer will shape not only Ukraine's security but the credibility of transatlantic commitments across NATO's eastern flank.
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.
