Ukraine is increasingly aware of the risk that, in the event of a potential peace agreement, the country will not be able to fully rely on external security guarantees. That is why Kyiv is forced to assume the worst-case scenario of having to independently guarantee that Russia will not be able to return with new aggression.
This is not just about temporary deterrence, but about a long-term security model. Last year, at the level of European institutions, Ukraine was called upon to transform into a state that would be so militarily and technologically strong that it would become an unattractive target for any future aggressor. In fact, into a country with a constantly ready defense potential.
This approach involves creating a large peacetime army, large-scale investments in modern military technologies, developing domestic weapons production, and a complete restructuring of the defense sector. This includes reforming the procurement system, updating approaches to mobilization and service, technological modernization of the army, and stable defense financing for years to come.
The need for its own deterrence system becomes especially urgent given that an invitation to NATO — Ukraine’s most reliable security option — is currently out of the question. Without collective defense under Article 5 of the Alliance, Ukraine is forced to rely on individual bilateral agreements that do not carry the same legal and political weight. Moreover, Russia has already openly signaled that it will oppose any formal security guarantees for Ukraine.
The unpredictability of US policy is causing additional anxiety in Kyiv. Sharp shifts in positions — from skepticism about the value of allies to demonstrably warm signals towards the Kremlin — raise doubts that Washington will be ready to take tough action in the event of a ceasefire violation. In this context, the idea that relying on external protection could turn out to be a fatal mistake is increasingly being voiced.
Plan B for Ukraine is self-reliance. A large army remains a key element of this strategy. During the peace talks, Kyiv insisted on maintaining the size of the army at around 800,000. At the same time, a potential ceasefire would mean a wave of demobilization, which would create a colossal challenge — both in terms of manning and financing.
At the same time, Ukraine is betting on technological superiority. During the full-scale war, an entire ecosystem of unmanned systems, missiles, electronic warfare and interception equipment was formed. However, the technologies themselves will not work without changing management and organizational approaches, as well as without a developed defense industry and a stable state budget.
Legally binding security agreements with the US and European powers, as well as the possible deployment of multinational forces from the so-called “coalition of the willing,” remain important points in the negotiations. However, Kyiv is increasingly emphasizing that all of this can only be a supplement to its own army, not a replacement for it.
In such a neighborhood, Ukraine is forced to come to terms with the reality that only a strong, well-equipped, and financially secure army can guarantee the independence of the state and prevent a recurrence of Russian aggression.
