Reshaping European Security Architecture: The Problem of the Ukraine Conflict

Meeting between US President Donald Trump and European leaders, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, along with representatives from NATO and the EU, on August 18. Photo: AP

Considering a Security Strategy for Ukraine: Current Options and Limitations

Observers say the shift in focus in Ukraine policy is not unexpected. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky appears to be avoiding territorial issues for now, with the expectation that direct talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin will only take place in a more favorable political environment – something that has yet to materialize. Meanwhile, in Europe, discussions on the issue are becoming increasingly complicated by internal differences of opinion, especially as the conflict drags on and strains the resources of member states.

In this context, the issue of ensuring Ukraine’s security, in the form of military assistance, intelligence cooperation, or the establishment of defense mechanisms, is considered more feasible politically and legally. Therefore, this topic is attracting more and more attention from policymakers, experts, and the international media.

One of the main challenges now, however, is the stance of US President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly expressed his opposition to Ukraine joining NATO. This stance makes it difficult to build a binding security mechanism, which Ukraine and some European countries see as necessary. However, US foreign policy can change with each presidential term. While it is not impossible that Trump’s successor could pursue a different approach, especially in promoting NATO expansion, any policy adjustment in that direction would have to wait at least a few years.

Faced with uncertainties from the US, according to international media, European countries are considering two strategic directions to ensure long-term security for Ukraine: First, strengthen Ukraine's internal defense capabilities through the provision of large-scale modern weapons, mainly financed by European funds; at the same time, support the recovery and development of Ukraine's defense industry, including technology transfer and long-term investment.

Second, establish a permanent Western military presence in Ukraine. While no specifics have been released, initial discussions suggest that Britain and France could play a leading role. However, some countries such as Germany remain cautious and there is no broad consensus within NATO on how to deploy forces.

According to Izvestia, Andrei Kortunov, Chairman of the Russian International Affairs Council, both options face significant challenges. Technically: Although most of the weapons are funded by Europe, the supply comes mainly from the United States. This raises questions about Washington's willingness to continue supplying advanced weapons systems to Europe, especially in the context of the US adjusting its strategic priorities to the Indo- Pacific region.

Politically: A stable European military presence in Ukraine would almost certainly require a security commitment from the United States, equivalent to Article 5 of the NATO treaty. However, the Trump administration has not shown any clear intention to make such a commitment. Instead, its statements have focused on the possibility of “remote support,” a concept that is poorly defined and non-binding.

A broader problem: European security architecture

According to analysts, the problem is not limited to Ukraine, but also related to the inseparable security structure of Europe. “If Russia feels threatened by a heavily armed, confrontational Ukraine, backed by an unfriendly European Union, Moscow’s response will be increasingly defensive.” This could lead to a prolonged confrontation, re-establishing dividing lines in Europe, triggering a new arms race – a scenario that would be extremely damaging to all sides.

A sustainable way out of this cycle of confrontation may lie in the creation of a new, comprehensive and inclusive European security architecture. This model would need to go beyond existing institutions and could draw inspiration from the dialogue mechanisms that existed during the Cold War.

Expert Andrei Kortunov emphasized that initial steps could include: Establishing mutual confidence-building measures; restoring military and diplomatic dialogue channels between Russia and the West; restarting arms control agreements, including conventional and nuclear weapons, which are stalled or have been suspended.

Although this will be a long and complicated process, it is important that countries focus on defining directions and acting together to ensure a sustainable regional security structure, creating peace and development for the world.

It is clear that any initiative to ensure Ukraine’s security must be placed within the overall European security context, taking into account the legitimate security interests of all parties involved. A lasting solution cannot be based solely on deterrence or confrontation, but must aim at balance, stability and inclusiveness – which can only be achieved through dialogue, mutual understanding and long-term cooperation mechanisms.

Hung Anh (Contributor)

Source: https://baothanhhoa.vn/tai-dinh-hinh-cau-truc-an-ninh-chau-au-bai-toan-tu-cuoc-xung-dot-ukraine-259967.htm