President Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s statement that a United States security guarantees document for Ukraine is “100 percent ready” may appear procedural at first glance. In reality, it marks one of the most consequential legal and geopolitical inflection points of the post Cold War order. If signed and ratified, the document would not merely reassure Kyiv. It would recalibrate how security commitments are structured outside formal alliance frameworks, and potentially redraw the rules governing conflict termination, deterrence and sovereignty in the twenty first century.
That this announcement came alongside confirmation of incremental progress in US mediated talks with Russia in Abu Dhabi underscores its strategic weight. The war in Ukraine is no longer only being fought on the battlefield. It is being renegotiated in conference rooms, legal texts and parliamentary chambers.
Security guarantees versus alliances: A deliberate legal design
Zelenskiy’s emphasis that security guarantees must come “first and foremost” from the United States is legally significant. Unlike NATO membership, which entails collective defence obligations under Article 5, security guarantees occupy a more ambiguous yet increasingly important legal space. They are crafted to deter aggression without triggering automatic war obligations.
From an international law perspective, the forthcoming document appears designed as a binding bilateral or multilateral commitment rather than a political declaration. Zelenskiy’s confirmation that it will require ratification by both the US Congress and the Ukrainian parliament elevates it above the category of executive understandings or memoranda of intent. Once ratified, it would carry domestic legal force in both jurisdictions and strengthen Ukraine’s claim to enforceable security assurances under international law.
This model reflects lessons learned from the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, under which Ukraine surrendered its nuclear arsenal in exchange for security assurances that ultimately proved unenforceable. The current effort seeks to close that legal gap by anchoring commitments within constitutional and legislative processes.
Washington’s calculated commitment and its global signal
For the United States, finalising such a document is a strategic balancing act. It signals enduring commitment to Ukraine’s security while stopping short of formal alliance expansion that could provoke direct escalation with Russia. Yet the international impact extends far beyond Eastern Europe.
A ratified US security guarantees framework would set a precedent for how Washington supports partners facing existential threats without extending treaty based defence obligations. Allies and adversaries alike will study its language closely. In East Asia, Middle Eastern capitals and parts of Africa, governments confronting revisionist pressures will ask whether similar guarantees are replicable or unique to Ukraine’s circumstances.
The legal architecture of this document therefore becomes a template. Its strength or weakness will shape perceptions of American credibility for years to come.
Abu Dhabi talks and the law of territorial integrity
The parallel negotiations in Abu Dhabi, involving Ukrainian and Russian representatives with US mediation, reveal the core legal tension underpinning the conflict. Zelenskiy was explicit that Ukraine has not shifted from its position on territorial integrity. This stance aligns squarely with the UN Charter, which prohibits the acquisition of territory by force.
Russia’s reported push for Ukraine to abandon eastern regions it has failed to capture militarily underscores the enduring clash between power based bargaining and rules based order. Any settlement that legitimises territorial change through aggression would erode a foundational principle of international law and create dangerous precedents globally.
The fact that the United States is attempting to bridge these positions through a twenty point framework reflects a broader dilemma in international relations. Peace processes often require compromise, yet certain norms cannot be compromised without destabilising the system itself. Where that line is drawn in Ukraine will reverberate far beyond Europe.
Ratification, legitimacy and domestic constraints
Zelenskiy’s reference to parliamentary ratification is more than a procedural detail. It introduces democratic legitimacy and domestic accountability into an arena often dominated by executive diplomacy. In the United States, congressional approval will test bipartisan consensus on long term engagement in Ukraine. In Ukraine, parliamentary ratification will anchor the guarantees within a constitutional order forged under wartime pressure.
Legally, this dual ratification enhances durability. Politically, it raises the stakes. Once enacted, withdrawal or dilution would carry significant domestic and international costs.
The strategic meaning of “some progress”
Zelenskiy’s cautious acknowledgment that there are now “fewer problematic issues” in the Abu Dhabi talks suggests movement without resolution. From an experienced diplomatic lens, this is often how foundational agreements are built. The most contentious issues are narrowed, rephrased or deferred, while legal frameworks and security assurances are finalised first.
This sequencing matters. By securing binding guarantees before a final settlement, Ukraine strengthens its negotiating position and reduces the risk of coercive concessions under ceasefire pressure.
A turning point for the international order
The readiness of a US Ukraine security guarantees document signals that the conflict is entering a new phase. Not an end to war, but a transition towards institutionalised deterrence and conditional diplomacy.
For international law, it represents an attempt to restore credibility to security assurances through enforceability. For global politics, it tests whether major powers can defend core principles without sliding into direct confrontation.
If signed and ratified, the document will stand as one of the most important legal instruments to emerge from the Ukraine war. Not because it guarantees peace, but because it redefines how peace and security are legally pursued in an increasingly fractured world order.