Paris Seals Ukraine’s Fate: Security Guarantees or Empty Promises

A robust deterrence mechanism

The security guarantees announced in Paris are not mere declarations of friendship. They include three concrete pillars. First pillar: participation in the monitoring and verification of a ceasefire under U.S. leadership. Second pillar: long-term support for the supply of weapons intended for Ukraine’s defense. Third pillar: binding commitments to support Ukraine in the event of a future armed attack by Russia. These three pillars form what Macron called robust guarantees for a solid and lasting peace. Robust. The word is important. It means that these guarantees are not symbolic. They have teeth. They bite.

Steve Witkoff emphasized the strength of these security protocols. They are designed to deter any new attack on Ukraine, and if an attack does occur despite this, they are designed to defend. Deter and defend. The two essential functions of any credible security guarantee. Witkoff also stated that these protocols are largely complete, meaning that the technical negotiations are nearly finished. All that remains is to formalize them legally and implement them. Jared Kushner added that today marked a major milestone. This does not mean that peace has been achieved, he clarified, but peace would not be possible without the progress made today.

I want to believe it. I want to believe that these guarantees are real. That the West won’t abandon Ukraine once the cameras are gone and media attention has shifted to the next crisis. But I’m afraid. Afraid that these guarantees are nothing more than words on paper. Afraid that the first test of these commitments will reveal their fragility. Afraid that Putin, calculating as ever, is simply waiting for the right moment to strike again, knowing that the West will hesitate, procrastinate, and look for excuses not to intervene.

The territorial issue remains unresolved

Despite all this progress, one crucial question remains unanswered: that of territory. Zelenskyy himself acknowledged this after the summit. The territorial issue is the most important one still to be resolved. Russia currently occupies about 20% of Ukrainian territory, including Crimea, which was annexed in 2014, and large portions of the Donbas. Moscow demands that Kyiv officially renounce these territories as a precondition for any peace agreement. Ukraine categorically refuses. This is the impasse—an impasse that could derail all diplomatic efforts, all security guarantees, and all the solemn commitments signed in Paris.

Witkoff stated that territorial issues will be the most critical matter and that he hopes compromises can be found. Compromises. The word that sends shivers down spines in Kyiv. Because for Ukraine, a compromise on territory means accepting the unacceptable. It means legitimizing the aggression. It means telling Putin that might makes right. Zelensky mentioned that the United States and Ukraine have discussed certain ideas regarding the territorial issue. Certain ideas. Vague. Ambiguous. Nothing concrete has been revealed. And this silence speaks volumes about the difficulty of these negotiations. Because until this issue is resolved, all other agreements remain suspended in limbo.

Russia Continues to Strike

While diplomats were signing documents in Paris, Russian missiles continued their work of destruction in Ukraine. Keir Starmer put it bluntly: despite all of Russia’s rhetoric, Putin is not showing that he is ready for peace. In recent weeks, we have seen the opposite. More horrific strikes on Ukraine, killing and wounding civilians, cutting off electricity to millions of people in the middle of winter. His forces struck a hospital in Kyiv just the day before the Paris summit. A hospital. Not a military base. Not a weapons depot. A hospital where doctors were treating the sick, where nurses were caring for patients, where families were waiting for news of their loved ones.

Putin has also attempted to divert attention from peace efforts with baseless claims of attacks on his residence. A classic diversionary tactic. Creating media noise to muddy the message. Making it seem as though he is the victim when he is the aggressor. Starmer was unequivocal: this only strengthens our resolve. The United Kingdom will continue to step up its support for Ukraine’s defense in 2026, to ensure it receives the equipment and support needed to continue the fight. And the pressure on Russia will continue, including new measures against oil traders and ghost fleet operators who are financing Putin’s war machine.

This is the harsh reality. While we talk about peace, Putin is waging war. While we sign declarations, he is launching missiles. While we negotiate compromises, he is occupying territories. And what are we doing? We are hoping. We are praying. We are signing papers. As if signatures could stop bombs. As if declarations of intent could protect civilians. I am angry. Angry at this powerlessness. Angry at this slowness. Angry at this obscene disconnect between the urgency of the situation and the sluggishness of our response.

The Kremlin’s intentions remain unclear

No one really knows what Putin wants. Does he truly want peace? Or is he simply playing for time, hoping that the West will grow weary, that Ukraine will be worn down, that the internal divisions within Western democracies will ultimately undermine their unity? Russia has repeatedly stated that it opposes any presence of NATO troops on Ukrainian soil to monitor a ceasefire. This is a red line for Moscow. A red line that the West is preparing to cross with its plans to deploy multinational forces. What will Putin do when French and British soldiers are stationed in Ukraine? Will he accept this reality? Or will he view it as a provocation justifying further escalation?

The final communiqué from the Paris summit contained an interesting sentence in its preliminary draft: Washington pledged to support the European-led multinational force in the event of a new Russian attack. That sentence disappeared from the final communiqué. Gone. Erased. Why? Because Trump didn’t want to commit so explicitly? Because the Americans want to keep some room to maneuver? Because promising automatic support in the event of a Russian attack means committing to a potential war with a nuclear power? This omission speaks volumes about the limits of U.S. commitment. About the fragility of these security guarantees, which seem so solid on the surface but conceal so many uncertainties beneath.

A transactional approach

Donald Trump wants this carnage to end. That’s what Steve Witkoff said on behalf of the U.S. president. Trump believes this war has gone on long enough. That it’s time to bring it to an end. That an agreement—even an imperfect one—must be reached rather than letting the conflict drag on indefinitely. This pragmatic, transactional approach—typical of Trump—worries some European allies. Because an agreement at any cost is potentially an agreement at Ukraine’s expense. An agreement that would sacrifice Ukrainian interests on the altar of realpolitik. An agreement that would give Putin part of what he wants in exchange for a temporary ceasefire.

But Witkoff also emphasized the strength of the security protocols backed by Trump. The U.S. president stands firmly behind these protocols, he asserted. They are designed to deter and defend. They are as strong as anyone has ever seen. Reassuring words. Promises that sound good. But Europeans remain wary. They remember Trump’s first term—his skepticism toward NATO, his threats to withdraw, his fascination with strongmen like Putin. They wonder if this time will be different. If Trump will keep his word. If America will remain committed beyond the election cycle, beyond presidential tweets, beyond diplomatic whims.

Trump. That name—it divides, it worries, it fascinates. I don’t know what to think. On the one hand, his pragmatism could break the deadlock. His direct approach, without diplomatic frills, could force Putin to negotiate seriously. On the other hand, his tendency to view everything as a business transaction terrifies me. Because Ukraine isn’t a real estate deal. It isn’t a negotiation where you can split the difference and shake hands. It’s a matter of national survival. Of dignity. Of freedom. And I fear that Trump doesn’t truly understand what’s at stake.

The Paris Coordination Center

One of the concrete decisions made at the summit was the creation of a U.S.-Ukraine-Coalition coordination cell based in Paris. This cell will serve as the nerve center for coordinating all aspects of the implementation of security guarantees. It will bring together American, Ukrainian, and European representatives who will work together on a daily basis to turn promises into reality. This is an important institutional mechanism. Because without coordination, even the best intentions get lost in bureaucratic red tape. Without a clear structure, commitments remain mere words on paper.

This task force will oversee the deployment of forces, the supply of weapons, the monitoring of the ceasefire, and the response to any violations. It will serve as the link between Western capitals and the situation on the ground in Ukraine. Between political decisions and their military execution. Between diplomatic promises and their operational implementation. Macron emphasized the importance of this structure. It ensures that all allies speak with one voice, act in a coordinated manner, and maintain pressure on Russia. That is the difference between a serious commitment and a mere declaration of good intentions.

Trump Is Unnerving His Allies

The Paris summit took place against a backdrop of growing tensions between the United States and Europe. Trump recently made provocative statements about Greenland, suggesting that the United States might seek to acquire or annex it. He has also threatened to intervene militarily in Venezuela to overthrow the Maduro regime. These statements have shocked European capitals. They have reignited fears of aggressive American unilateralism. They have reminded Europeans that Trump does not really care about diplomatic sensitivities, international norms, or the opinions of his allies.

Despite these tensions, European leaders chose to set aside their differences to focus on Ukraine. Macron welcomed the presence of U.S. representatives in Paris. Starmer emphasized the importance of transatlantic unity. Merz stressed the need to work together. All made an effort to present a united front. But beneath the surface, concerns are simmering. Europeans are wondering whether they can truly count on a Trump-led America. Whether they should start developing their own independent defense capabilities. Whether they should prepare for a world where the Atlantic alliance is no longer the pillar of their security.

This diplomatic schizophrenia makes my head spin. On the one hand, we need the United States—its military power, its ability to project force, and its leadership. On the other, we have Trump threatening Greenland, talking about annexing Venezuela, and treating European allies like vassals. How can we build a coherent security strategy under these conditions? How can we trust such an unpredictable partner? How can we plan for the future when the present is so chaotic?

Europe Facing Up to Its Responsibilities

The Paris summit revealed an uncomfortable truth: Europe must take on more responsibility for its own security. The Americans are willing to help, but they no longer want to bear the burden alone. Trump made this clear during his campaign: Europeans must pay their share. They must increase their defense budgets. They must develop their military capabilities. They must stop relying exclusively on American protection. And on this point, Trump is not wrong. For decades, Europe has benefited from the U.S. security umbrella. It has underinvested in its defense. It has relied on NATO without truly contributing in proportion to its means.

Now the bill is coming due. And it’s a hefty one. Deploying thousands of troops to Ukraine is expensive. Supplying weapons, ammunition, and equipment is expensive. Maintaining a permanent military presence is expensive. Building military hubs, secure facilities, and defense infrastructure is expensive. National budgets are already stretched thin. The public is war-weary. Governments face pressing domestic challenges. But the alternative is worse. Because if Europe abandons Ukraine, if it lets Putin win, the message will be clear: aggression pays. Might trumps right. And the next target could be a NATO country. Poland. The Baltic states. And by then, it will be too late.

Ukraine Welcomes the Progress

Zelensky expressed his satisfaction after the summit. “These aren’t just words,” he said. “There is concrete substance: a joint statement from all coalition countries and a trilateral statement from France, the United Kingdom, and Ukraine.” He emphasized that military officials have worked through every detail of the deployment. That Ukraine now understands who is ready to do what. That discussions with the Americans on surveillance were very substantive. That the U.S. is ready to work on this issue. That deterrents to prevent further Russian aggression are in place. All of this is positive. All of this represents real progress.

But Zelenskyy is not naive. He knows that promises are not enough. He knows that history is full of broken commitments. He knows that Ukraine will have to continue fighting, resisting, and proving that it deserves Western support. He knows that the territorial issue remains the crux of the problem. And he knows that as long as Putin refuses to negotiate in good faith, all these plans will remain theoretical. But for now, he chooses to see the glass as half full. To acknowledge the progress. To thank the allies. To maintain the coalition’s unity. Because that’s his job. Because that’s what his country expects of him. Because hope, even if fragile, is better than despair.

I think of Zelensky. Of this man who refused the evacuation offered by the Americans at the start of the war. Who said, “I need ammunition, not a taxi.” Who stayed in Kyiv when everyone thought the city would fall within a few days. Who turned his country into a symbol of resistance. Who made Ukraine the moral cause of our time. And now, he must beg for security guarantees. Plead with his allies to keep their promises. Negotiate compromises that tear at his heart. What an injustice. What cruelty. What a tragedy.

Russia denounces a provocation

Unsurprisingly, Moscow reacted negatively to the announcements from the Paris summit. The Kremlin denounced it as a Western provocation. An attempt to encircle Russia. A violation of European security agreements. Russian spokespeople reiterated that any Western military presence in Ukraine would be considered a direct threat to Russian security. That Russia would take all necessary measures to protect its interests. That the West is playing with fire. The usual threats. The usual language. The usual rhetoric. But behind these words lies a reality: Putin does not want Western troops in Ukraine. He knows that this would fundamentally alter the balance of power. That it would make any new aggression far more costly. That it would turn Ukraine into a Western stronghold on his borders.

Some Russian analysts have suggested that Moscow might use these deployments as a pretext to reject any peace agreement. That Putin might say: How can I agree to a ceasefire when NATO is setting up military bases in Ukraine? It’s a classic tactic. Reversing the roles. Portraying oneself as the victim. Accusing the other side of sabotaging the negotiations. But no one is fooled. Russia has invaded Ukraine. Russia occupies 20% of Ukrainian territory. Russia is bombing civilians. Russia is the aggressor. And no rhetoric, however sophisticated, can change this fundamental reality.

Funding: Who Will Foot the Bill

Deploying thousands of soldiers, building military infrastructure, supplying weapons on an ongoing basis, monitoring a ceasefire along thousands of kilometers of front lines—all of this costs billions. Tens of billions. Perhaps hundreds of billions in the long term. Who will pay? The Europeans hope that the Americans will contribute substantially. The Americans hope that the Europeans will shoulder the bulk of the costs. This tension over funding could become a major point of friction. Because national budgets are limited. Because the public is reluctant to spend more on defense. Because each country will try to minimize its contribution while maximizing its influence.

France and the United Kingdom, as leaders of this initiative, will have to lead by example. They will have to put their money where their words are. They will have to convince their parliaments, their taxpayers, and their citizens that this investment is worth it. That Ukraine’s security is Europe’s security. That every euro spent to defend Kyiv is a euro invested in the defense of Paris and London. It won’t be easy. European governments face considerable economic challenges: inflation, unemployment, public debt, and underfunded social services. Finding additional billions for Ukraine in this context will be a perilous political exercise.

Money. Always money. We find billions to bail out banks. Billions to subsidize businesses. Billions for tax cuts. But when it comes to defending freedom, protecting democracy, and supporting a country fighting for its survival, suddenly the coffers are empty. Suddenly, we have to make difficult choices. Suddenly, people are talking about fiscal responsibility. This hypocrisy revolts me. Because if we lose Ukraine, we’ll lose far more than a few billion. We’ll lose our credibility. Our influence. Our security. And that—that’s priceless.

Operational Coordination

Coordinating the military forces of dozens of countries is no small feat. Every army has its own procedures, its own equipment, its own language, and its own military culture. Getting French, British, Polish, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, and other soldiers to work together requires extremely sophisticated operational coordination. A clear chain of command must be established. Standardized communication protocols. Interoperable weapons systems. Common engagement procedures. All of this takes time. A lot of time. And in the meantime, the war continues.

The Paris-based coordination cell will play a crucial role in this process. But it cannot do everything on its own. Joint exercises will be needed. Joint training. Simulations. Tests. Problems must be identified before they become critical on the ground. Trust must be built between the various forces. Mutual understanding must be developed. And all of this must happen quickly. Because if a ceasefire is agreed upon tomorrow, the forces must be ready to deploy immediately. Not in six months. Not in a year. Immediately. This is a colossal logistical and organizational challenge.

The Optimistic Scenario: Lasting Peace

In the best-case scenario, negotiations lead to an agreement acceptable to all parties. Russia agrees to withdraw from certain occupied territories. Ukraine accepts a neutral status with strong security guarantees. Multinational forces are deployed without incident. The ceasefire holds. Reconstruction begins. Ukraine gets back on its feet. Europe breathes a sigh of relief. Peace takes hold. This is the optimistic scenario—the one everyone hopes for, the one diplomats are working day and night to achieve, the one that would allow us to turn the page on this horrific war and build a better future.

But this scenario requires that several conditions be met. Putin must agree to negotiate in good faith. Trump must maintain his commitment. The Europeans must keep their promises. Ukraine must accept painful compromises. And above all, all parties must have the political will to make this agreement work. To overcome the inevitable difficulties. To resist the temptation to backtrack. To build trust gradually. It’s possible. But it’s difficult. Very difficult. Because trust, once broken, is extremely hard to rebuild. And between Russia and the West, trust has been shattered.

I want to believe in the optimistic scenario. I want to imagine a world where this war finally ends. Where Ukrainian families can return home. Where children can go back to school without fearing air raid sirens. Where destroyed cities are rebuilt. Where life resumes. But I am a realist. I know the road ahead will be long. Littered with obstacles. Full of disappointments. And I wonder if we truly have the strength, patience, and determination needed to see it through to the end.

The Pessimistic Scenario: Escalation

In the worst-case scenario, negotiations fail. Putin refuses any compromise. Trump loses patience and loses interest in the issue. The Europeans are divided. Ukraine, exhausted, begins to crack. Russia launches a new offensive. Western forces deployed in Ukraine come under attack. NATO must decide whether or not to intervene. The crisis worsens. The escalation spirals out of control. This is the worst-case scenario. The one no one wants to consider. The one that could lead to a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia. The one that could escalate into a nuclear conflict.

This scenario is not science fiction. It is plausible. Because Putin has already shown that he is willing to take enormous risks. Because Trump is unpredictable. Because the Europeans are divided. Because Ukraine is desperate. Because miscalculations are easy to make in times of war. One incident. One provocation. One misinterpretation. And suddenly, everything can change. That is why security guarantees are so important. That is why deterrence is crucial. That is why ambiguity must be avoided at all costs. Because ambiguity, in times of crisis, is an invitation to disaster.

The Paris summit on January 6, 2026, will go down in history—either as a turning point or as a missed opportunity. That will depend on what happens in the weeks and months ahead. The security guarantees announced are the strongest ever offered to Ukraine. The deployment of multinational forces represents an unprecedented commitment. Coordination among allies has never been closer. All of this is positive. All of this represents real progress. But the challenges remain immense. The territorial issue remains unresolved. Putin’s intentions remain unclear. Funding is not guaranteed. Operational coordination has yet to be established. And above all, the political will to uphold these commitments over the long term remains to be proven.

The West stands at a crossroads. It can choose to keep its promises, deploy its forces, and defend Ukraine at all costs. Or it can choose the easy way out—a convenient compromise, a disguised abandonment. The first choice is difficult, costly, and risky. But it is the only one that preserves our credibility, our security, and our values. The second choice is tempting, economical, and prudent. But it is the one that condemns us to strategic insignificance, permanent vulnerability, and moral shame. Paris has shown that the West is capable of uniting, deciding, and acting. Now we must prove that this unity is not fleeting. That these decisions are not hollow. That these actions are not merely symbolic. The moment of truth is approaching. And history will judge us by what we do—not by what we say.

I end this article with mixed feelings. Hope, because finally something is happening. Fear, because so much can still go wrong. Anger, because this war should never have happened. Sadness, for all the lives lost, all the families torn apart, all the cities destroyed. But above all, determination. Because we cannot let Putin win. We cannot abandon Ukraine. We cannot betray our values. We must hold on. No matter the cost. Until the very end. Because it is our responsibility. Our duty. Our honor.