As the second anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine approaches, Karsten Friis writes that Ukraine must define a strategic end on its own terms. It should be one that Russia cannot prevent and that Ukraine and its Western partners can achieve together. This definition of victory should be decoupled from territorial demarcation lines and defined in broader, non-territorial terms.
Tetiana Melnyk explores the viability of several security guarantees for Ukraine. A lasting resolution to the conflict would require a more systematic integration of Ukraine, and potentially other Eastern European states, into as many Western structures and organisations as possible, she writes.
Institutionalised and forward-looking security and defence cooperation during the war and interim period are critical security guarantees for Ukraine. Kateryna Anisova writes that the G7-EU-coalition-of-willing nexus can assure a comprehensive and mutually reinforcing approach for bolstering Ukraine’s capabilities and integrating it into the Euro-Atlantic security system before the war ends.
Current security guarantees for Ukraine range from unavailable to ineffective, writes Sascha Ostanina. She proposes a middle-ground solution to provide collective security for Ukraine through a binding self-defence agreement between the EU and Ukraine. Such an agreement would provide Ukraine with access to weapons and ammunition in the event of Russian aggression.
To avoid making post-war Ukraine’s public sentiments grow anti-Western or isolationist, Denys Karlovskyi writes that NATO must build a mutually beneficial framework of security cooperation with Ukraine’s government and maintain the current level of Ukrainian public support for NATO and the EU. One way of achieving this is for NATO member states to engage with the Ukrainian public in a way that is on par with the government.
Following the US decision to send cluster munitions to Ukraine, Mary Wareham and Kasia Derlicka-Rosenbauer write that countries that have endorsed their ban have a collective responsibility to end the human suffering caused by these weapons. To protect the convention’s gains and strengthen its impact, they outline three steps that state parties and supportive sates can take.