Berlin talks sketch Ukraine security guarantees but Russia stays cold

European leaders emerged from two days of talks in Berlin on 14 and 15 December with a written pledge to build a security architecture for Ukraine that stops short of NATO membership but goes further than any previous Western commitment. The "Leader's statement on Ukraine" describes a European-led multinational force that would operate inside the country, a US-led ceasefire verification mechanism and a legally binding promise to act if Russia attacks again. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy attended alongside US special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, son-in-law of President-elect Donald Trump, signalling that the incoming American administration was already shaping the framework.

What the European statement actually promises

The document commits the signatories to a "European-led 'multinational force Ukraine' made up from contributions from willing nations." Its tasks would include assisting the regeneration of Ukraine's armed forces, securing Ukrainian airspace and supporting safer seas, "including through operating inside Ukraine." In the event of a peace agreement, a "US led ceasefire monitoring and verification mechanism with international participation" would be established. Perhaps most significantly, the leaders promised "a legally binding commitment, subject to national procedures, to take measures to restore peace and security in the case of a future armed attack" on Ukraine. The measures listed range from armed force and intelligence support to economic and diplomatic actions.

Reuters, citing its own sources, reported that Zelenskyy agreed during the Berlin talks to drop Ukraine's long-standing NATO membership bid in return for these guarantees. Neither the Ukrainian nor the German side confirmed the claim publicly. The US has not issued an official statement, though an unnamed US official told AFP the basis of the agreement was "really, really strong guarantees, Article Five like, also a very, very strong deterrence," adding that US troop deployment was not envisaged.

Experts split on whether guarantees equal Article 5

Susan Stewart of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) called the statement "very important" for Ukraine because it listed concrete measures and signalled European readiness. She pointed out that NATO's Article 5 does not automatically require a military response; each ally decides what means are necessary and appropriate. In her view, the European text mirrors that flexibility. Claudia Major of the German Marshall Fund disagreed sharply. "It is support. However, it is not a legally binding obligation to defend Ukraine in the event of a new attack," she told ARD. On the basis of what is known, she said, there is no way to deduce whether troops would be sent or Ukraine would be defended as a NATO member would be.

The disagreement matters because Article 5's strength lies in political certainty: an attack on one is treated as an attack on all, and the collective response, while not prescribed, is expected to be substantial. The Berlin text replaces that collective trigger with a national decision-making process "subject to national procedures," a phrase that introduces parliamentary vetoes and coalition politics into any future crisis.

Russia's position: no ceasefire, no text, no concession

The Kremlin's first public reaction was dismissive. Spokesman Dmitry Peskov rejected Chancellor Merz's proposal for a short Christmas ceasefire, saying: "We want peace, we don't want a truce that would give Ukraine a respite and prepare for the continuation of the war." On security guarantees, Peskov said: "We have not seen any texts yet. Once we see them, we will analyze them." The language suggests Moscow is in no hurry to engage with a framework it did not help design. Russian attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure and front-line positions continued over the holiday period.

Territorial questions and the Donbass trap

Carlo Masala of the Bundeswehr University Munich argued that Russia believes it is "on the path to victory" and will not make concessions until it controls all of Donbass. "The specific issue here is Donbass, whether or not the Russians can effectively take possession of the entire region. At the moment, the Russians are insisting on this. Until this happens, Putin will continue this war." Zelenskyy said after the Berlin talks that the US had suggested a "free economic zone" in the parts of Donbass still under Ukrainian control. Wilfried Jilge of the German Council on Foreign Relations warned that any such zone, even if policed only by unarmed personnel, would become a vector for Russian manipulation. "As soon as the Russians are in such an area, even if it's just police forces, it can be expected that regulations will be undermined and manipulated again," he said, drawing a direct line to the Minsk agreements where ceasefire lines became frozen conflict zones.

Ghosts of Budapest and Minsk

Both Reisner, a senior analyst at the Austrian Ministry of Defence, and Jilge invoked the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 and the Minsk I and II agreements of 2014 and 2015. The Budapest Memorandum, signed by Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom, committed the parties to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for Kyiv giving up nuclear weapons. Minsk I and II were negotiated ceasefires that never held. "We must hope that these security guarantees, if they come from the US, are really serious and will also be implemented," Reisner said. Jilge went further, warning that the current talks could produce a "Minsk III", a ceasefire that freezes the front lines without resolving the political status of occupied territory, leaving Ukraine vulnerable to renewed aggression.

The US role: present but not yet committed

The presence of Witkoff and Kushner in Berlin, followed by a telephone call with President-elect Trump, indicates that the incoming administration is actively shaping the European effort. However, the absence of an official US statement and the AFP source's clarification that US troops are not part of the deterrence package leave the American commitment ambiguous. European leaders appear to have moved forward on the assumption that Washington will back the ceasefire verification mechanism and the broader guarantee framework, but the details of that backing, funding, intelligence sharing, political cover at the UN Security Council, remain unwritten.

What happens before any guarantee is tested

The Berlin statement is a political declaration, not a treaty. Its "legally binding commitment" is explicitly made "subject to national procedures," meaning each parliament must ratify its own contribution. The multinational force requires "willing nations" to step forward with troops, air defence systems and naval assets. The ceasefire monitoring mechanism needs a ceasefire to monitor, and Russia has not agreed to one. The free economic zone in Donbass exists only as a US suggestion, not a negotiated term. In short, the architecture is designed for a peace that has not yet been made, and its credibility will depend on whether the US and Europe can maintain unity once the Trump administration takes office on 20 January 2025.