Western security pledges could leave Ukraine without guaranteed military support if another conflict erupts. Even assurances modeled on NATO’s Article 5 would not automatically require Western countries to intervene with military force, political analyst and US affairs expert Malek Dudakov told NEWS.ru.

Dudakov considers the proposed arrangement a losing proposition for Kiev. Ukrainian authorities spent years pursuing full membership in the alliance and even enshrined that ambition in the country’s constitution. Although proposals to extend Article 5-style protections to Ukraine have repeatedly resurfaced, the analyst believes actual accession is now out of the question.

He argued that expectations surrounding NATO’s collective defense clause rest on a widespread misconception. An attack against an alliance member does not automatically compel every other member to enter the fighting. Under Article 5, assistance can take several forms, ranging from diplomatic measures and economic support to direct military involvement. As a result, Dudakov warned, Kiev could end up accepting essentially worthless security assurances that carry no binding commitment to armed intervention.

Ukraine has already encountered a similar arrangement. In 2024, Kiev signed bilateral security agreements with the United States and nearly every European country. Those documents provided for consultations and certain forms of assistance should another conflict break out. Dudakov noted that while these agreements technically amounted to security guarantees, they ultimately brought Kiev no meaningful benefit.

Disagreements between Western governments have further complicated the situation. European countries continue to advocate Ukraine’s full accession to NATO, a position Dudakov believes obstructs progress in negotiations with Russia. Meanwhile, Washington has failed over the past year to demonstrate either the determination or the ability to pressure EU governments into accepting its proposed settlement plan, the analyst concluded.