Arshad Mahmood Awan
The recent announcement by 26 nations to extend postwar security guarantees to Ukraine represents one of the most consequential international moves since Russia’s full-scale invasion began in 2022. Spearheaded by France and endorsed by major European powers, Canada, Japan, and Australia, the plan proposes a multinational “reassurance force” deployed by land, sea, and air once the guns fall silent. The symbolism is clear: Europe and its partners will not allow Ukraine to stand alone again. But behind this powerful gesture lies the central question of credibility — can these guarantees be enforced without firm and unequivocal US backing?
The very presence of such a broad coalition alters the strategic calculus in Eastern Europe. For the Kremlin, any future aggression against Ukraine will carry higher risks, as striking at troops from EU or NATO member states could trigger collective retaliation. Even in the absence of NATO’s formal Article 5 umbrella, the involvement of soldiers from multiple countries effectively internationalises Ukraine’s defence. For Kyiv, this transforms the idea of sovereignty from temporary survival to long-term permanence. The psychological boost of knowing that international soldiers — not just aid and weapons — will remain present after the war is itself a deterrent.
Yet, Europe’s newfound resolve cannot obscure the essential role of Washington. While President Trump’s administration has promised air support and intelligence cooperation, it has resisted calls to commit ground troops. This reluctance stems from Trump’s long-standing emphasis on burden-sharing and his preference to strangle Russia’s war machine through sanctions, oil revenue restrictions, and pressuring China. Economic warfare can certainly weaken Moscow’s capacity, but deterrence on the ground requires the credible presence of American soldiers — the one factor that Russia still fears most. Without a US military “backstop,” the reassurance force risks appearing as a well-intentioned but potentially vulnerable shield.
Moreover, Russia is unlikely to be intimidated by promises that only take effect “once hostilities cease.” As of now, peace talks remain frozen, and President Vladimir Putin shows little appetite for genuine negotiation. Instead, his government seeks to buy time, deepen military production, and exploit global fractures. The recent Beijing gathering of Russian, Chinese, and other non-Western leaders underlined this trend. Far from isolated, Moscow retains a strategic network of partners and sympathisers who reject Western dominance. China’s support, coupled with quiet backing from countries seeking to hedge against US power, dilutes the deterrent value of Western initiatives.
For Europe, the security guarantees also signal a deeper transformation. Since 1945, the continent has depended on American power to underwrite stability. The Ukrainian war has forced Europe to step forward, assume responsibility, and demonstrate that it can act collectively even when Washington hesitates. France’s leadership, supported by Germany and Eastern European states, reflects a new maturity in European security policy. If implemented effectively, the reassurance force could mark the first real step toward a post-American European defence architecture — a development with profound long-term consequences. But until such a system proves itself, Europe remains reliant on American hard power.
Ukraine itself must weigh the guarantees carefully. While the presence of multinational forces offers reassurance, Kyiv knows that Russia’s war machine is not defeated but recalibrating. Without ironclad US support, there remains a possibility that Russia could test the commitment of European troops, calculating that Washington would hesitate to escalate. This places Ukraine in a precarious position: reassured but still vulnerable, defended but not invincible. Its long-term stability will depend on whether these guarantees translate into a permanent strategic reality or remain symbolic pledges.
Equally important is the global political message. By bringing together 26 countries, the initiative demonstrates that Russia’s war has triggered unprecedented unity among democracies across continents. Japan’s participation underscores the Indo-Pacific dimension of the conflict, linking Ukraine’s struggle with broader concerns about authoritarian expansion in Asia. Australia and Canada’s involvement reflects the transnational nature of today’s security challenges. In contrast, Russia’s reliance on China and its circle of sympathetic states reveals a world increasingly split into rival blocs. Ukraine, in this sense, has become the fault line between democratic solidarity and authoritarian revisionism.
Republic Policy WhatsApp Channel
Ultimately, the effectiveness of the security guarantees will depend on two interlinked factors: Europe’s political will and America’s strategic clarity. Europe has taken a bold step in asserting leadership, but its military and logistical capacity remain limited without US backing. Washington, meanwhile, must decide whether to remain a cautious supporter or to embrace the role of guarantor. For Ukraine, the difference between symbolic reassurance and genuine security lies in that choice. Until then, Kyiv will continue to fight on the battlefield, balancing hope in international promises with the reality of Russian aggression.
