US Senator Lindsey Graham has stated that security guarantees for Ukraine should not include NATO membership or nuclear weapons, deeming such demands “unreasonable.” This response came after Valery Zaluzhny, Ukraine’s former top military commander and current ambassador to the UK, suggested that “effective security guarantees” could comprise NATO membership, the stationing of nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory, or a significant allied military presence capable of confronting Russia.
In an opinion piece published in The Telegraph, Zaluzhny outlined these possibilities as part of a broader discussion on Ukraine’s security needs. However, Senator Graham countered on social media that such arrangements are “far beyond what is possible.” He emphasized the importance of feasibility in any analysis, especially at this critical juncture, and expressed his belief that the security guarantees mentioned by Zaluzhny, including NATO accession and the placement of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, are not viable options.
Ukraine’s bid to join NATO was submitted in 2022, with several European countries, including the UK and France, indicating a willingness to deploy a multinational force to the country following a ceasefire with Russia. The US has, however, been clear in its stance against admitting Ukraine into NATO or deploying American troops into the country. Russia has consistently demanded that Ukraine abandon its pursuit of NATO membership in favor of adopting a neutral stance, stressing that the presence of nuclear weapons or Western troops on Ukrainian soil would be unacceptable and potentially lead to conflict with NATO.
The debate over security guarantees for Ukraine reflects the complex geopolitical landscape surrounding the conflict. As discussions continue, the feasibility and implications of various security arrangements remain under scrutiny. The positions of key international players, including the US, Russia, and European nations, will be crucial in determining the path forward for Ukraine’s security and its relations with NATO and other global actors. The emphasis on what is “reasonably possible” underscores the need for pragmatic solutions that consider the diverse interests and concerns at play.
