At Munich, Zelenskyy bets on European army as Ukraine’s plan B

From Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s speech at the 2025 Munich Security Conference, it is clear that dialogue with the White House is evolving with difficulty.

In his pursuit of peace broker status, Donald Trump appears to be offering Kyiv only one rather ineffective scenario for resolving the war—a frozen conflict along the frontlines. This freeze would mean an immediate cessation of hostilities, the establishment of a demilitarized buffer zone, and territorial exchanges—such as the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from Russian-held territories in exchange for the de-occupation of parts of Kharkiv or Zaporizhzhia oblasts.

The hidden cost of a ceasefire

A ceasefire in the form of a frozen conflict would come at a high price for Ukraine, especially without an invitation to NATO and adequate security guarantees. Through its new Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, Washington stated that expanding NATO to include Ukraine is unrealistic. This is not only the position of the United States but also several European partners of Ukraine.

There are several reasons for this:

• fear of Russia and the strategic uncertainty in which the Kremlin has placed Europe and the world,
• the principled stances of leaders like Viktor Orbán and Robert Fico, and
• the lack of consensus among NATO member states on gradually integrating a new member into the Alliance.

Some suggest a “German scenario” for Ukraine, pointing to how West Germany accepted East Germany’s separate status until reunification in 1990. But this comparison ignores a crucial difference: East Germany was established as a distinct state, while Russia holds Ukrainian territories through direct military occupation. Accepting Russian jurisdiction over Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea would only cement their annexation.

President Zelenskyy has made it clear that Ukraine will not take such steps, though he acknowledges that the resources to liberate these territories are not available. Moreover, capabilities are depleting by the day, and the issue goes beyond ammunition, drones, and various types of weaponry; it is also about human resources. Replenishing Ukraine’s manpower is far more challenging than replenishing weapons stockpiles.

Ultimately, this is why a ceasefire is needed at the moment—not just for Ukraine but also for Russia—so both sides can rearm and replenish their forces. This reality makes a temporary ceasefire and the freezing of hostilities along the frontlines, possibly involving territorial exchanges, a flawed solution for ending the war. However, at present, there is no other feasible outcome and no clear answer to how to achieve a sustainable ceasefire or long-term peace.

With NATO stalled, Ukraine looks for alternative security guarantees

Credible security guarantees for Ukraine, one of which is NATO membership, are essential for long-term peace. However, based on President Zelenskyy’s interviews, Kyiv seems to have come to terms with the fact that this will not happen in the near future. Therefore, it appears that Kyiv is negotiating for an acceptable insurance policy against a renewed Russian invasion.

We must not deceive ourselves—any peace agreement will only serve as a pause in a prolonged war of attrition and survival. Having replenished its resources and learned from its mistakes in 2022, Russia will launch a new offensive—it is only a matter of time. The current issue is how to raise the cost of a new round of war for Russia as much as possible and apply a comprehensive approach of deterrence by denial and punishment.

The United States seeks to reduce its involvement in this conflict. Pete Hegseth, commenting on possible security guarantees, stated that the US would not be part of a peacekeeping force if one were deployed to Ukraine following a ceasefire. It should be noted that a peacekeeping mission could have been a reasonable and effective solution, providing necessary security guarantees for Ukraine. Such a mission could play a key role in stabilizing the situation, controlling the conflict zone, and preventing the escalation of violence. However, despite the obvious advantages, it is highly unlikely that Russia would agree to the deployment of peacekeepers on Ukrainian territory.

At the same time, Washington seems to be leaning more toward considering the Kremlin’s viewpoint. Understanding that the Donald Trump administration desires only a quick end to the match and is not playing on the Ukrainian side of the field, President Zelenskyy emphasized the importance of European support in his Munich speech.

Zelenskyy leans on Europe as transatlantic fractures deepen

Zelenskyy insists on European involvement in the negotiations to resolve the war, aiming for political support. Macron and Scholz, who have stood side by side with Zelenskyy in the fight for three years, will be ready to back Kyiv’s position at the negotiating table. At the same time, Zelenskyy has capitalized on a new trend in international relations, one that has slowly evolved over the past decade but which the Trump administration has given a new resonance— the fracture of transatlantic relations.

Zelenskyy’s words about sovereign European armed forces will certainly resonate with the French president. His statements about an independent Europe will also be well-received by many European leaders, who are deeply dissatisfied with the speech by the US Vice President J.D. Vance. His speech sparked outrage and disappointment among European countries, as evidenced by the urgent meeting called by President Macron in Paris.

In the US, the threat posed by Russia is inadequately appreciated, while in Europe, it is felt more acutely. After all, the war is being fought on European soil, and Europeans have borne the brunt of its consequences. Therefore, Kyiv is counting on European security guarantees.

Zelenskyy has not removed NATO membership from the agenda, with Kyiv demanding an invitation as a clear signal. Without NATO commitment, Putin would achieve one of his key “Special Military Operation” goals—the Kremlin’s euphemism for its full-scale war—by keeping Ukraine in a grey zone between Russia and NATO rather than an integrated part of Western security.

Zelenskyy made clear that Ukraine no longer relies on the US as the leader of the free, democratic world. Yes, Washington remains an important partner, one on which Kyiv still depends in many ways. But when it comes to shaping the new post-war security architecture, based on security guarantees aimed at deterring Russia for the time being, Ukraine is looking to Brussels.

Zelenskyy pushes for European army

Kyiv is seeking an alternative to NATO through European partners who are willing to invest in deterring Russia.

The problem is that the Russian threat is sometimes misinterpreted not only in the White House but also in some European countries. The farther from the front line, the more elusive the “sword of Damocles” Putin has hung over the European continent seems. While Poland maintains readiness to invest resources in resisting Russia and its satellite Belarus, in Germany, the perception of the Russian threat is much softer, both among the political elite and the public. The farther west from the battlefield, the less palpable the danger feels.

However, with Washington’s diminishing interest and the growing rift in transatlantic relations, European countries will be forced to unite to overcome shared challenges with their own strength.

Currently, Europe faces a window of opportunity to assert itself as a separate and unified center of power in the new, changing multipolar world order and to chart a new course for self-sufficient development. A key component of this should be the creation of pan-European armed forces. Zelenskyy insists that Ukraine must be part of this European army. While Ukraine’s armed forces serve as the sword, defending Europe from Russian aggression, an effective defense requires a shield that will strengthen Europe’s security.

As Europe faces increasing challenges, it is becoming clear that it will need to develop military cooperation and strategic unity to counter these threats effectively. This approach involves the creation of not just pan-European armed forces but also joint initiatives in defense, intelligence, and cybersecurity. With increased internal coordination and an active role for European nations, Ukraine, as a country on the front lines of this battle, has a unique opportunity to play a more prominent role in strengthening Europe’s defense capabilities while integrating into new forms of regional security. This would be an important step on the path to Ukraine’s ultimate European integration.

alina hrytsenko

Alina Hrytsenko, an international relations specialist and a Senior Consultant at the National Institute for Strategic Studies in Kyiv.

Editor’s note. The opinions expressed in our Opinion section belong to their authors. Euromaidan Press’ editorial team may or may not share them.

Submit an opinion to Euromaidan Press