\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\n In 2025, Jennifer Kavanaugh and Christopher McCallion wrote, \u201cArmed Neutrality for Ukraine Is NATO\u2019s Least Poor Option,\u201d where they made the case for armed neutrality over full NATO membership as the wiser course for both Ukraine and NATO. A year later, we asked them to revisit their arguments.\u00a0Image: MidjourneyIn your 2025 article, you argued that NATO membership and binding U.S. or European security guarantees for Ukraine were effectively unworkable, and that armed neutrality was the option best suited to protecting both Ukraine\u2019s security and NATO\u2019s credibility. As the debate has evolved to include talk of \u201cArticle 5-like\u201d assurances short of membership, has the trajectory moved toward or away from the armed neutrality outcome you described?It is true that \u201cArticle 5-like\u201d assurances have been floated, but it\u2019s unclear what this means and whether these proposals will amount to anything. First, NATO\u2019s Article 5 commitment is unique. It is not simply about the treaty language, but also institutional cooperation and integration. A commitment to Ukraine outside of NATO would not have this weight, and would be very much unlike Article 5 as a result.Second, the way the Trump administration has described hypothetical promises to Ukraine (to the extent it has discussed this issue at all) suggests that the commitment would come from Europe\u2019s Coalition of the Willing, possibly with U.S. logistical support. Since the Coalition of the Willing itself is a loose concept that currently has no clear mandate or allocated forces, it is uncertain what, if anything, is being offered to Ukraine. President Donald Trump has also wavered on whether the United States would commit to providing a backstop of any kind.More importantly, it has been months since there has been any mention of these assurances, in part because even before negotiations stalled, no one seemed satisfied with them. They were <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
This article is reserved for War on the Rocks members. Join our community to unlock exclusive insights and analysis.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
In 2025, Jennifer Kavanaugh and Christopher McCallion wrote, \u201cArmed Neutrality for Ukraine Is NATO\u2019s Least Poor Option,\u201d where they made the case for armed neutrality over full NATO membership as the wiser course for both Ukraine and NATO. A year later, we asked them to revisit their arguments.<\/p>\n
Image: Midjourney<\/p>\n
In your 2025 article, you argued that NATO membership and binding U.S. or European security guarantees for Ukraine were effectively unworkable, and that armed neutrality was the option best suited to protecting both Ukraine\u2019s security and NATO\u2019s credibility. As the debate has evolved to include talk of \u201cArticle 5-like\u201d assurances\u2026<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n