A point that rightly loomed large in earlier discussions about a potential U.S.-imposed Ukraine deal was the central role of security guarantees. There is far less focus on this now, with most attention on territorial concessions. In my view, however, that is really only of secondary importance.
Yes, if all this doesn't end with Ukraine given A5 (or a credible equivalent), then it hasn't really ended. An imperialist dictator who proudly claims "wherever a Russian soldier sets foot is ours" clearly isn't going to respect any territorial agreements. We've been here before... 🤷♂️
What is A5?
Sorry, was running low on characters! Article 5 of the NATO treaty - the collective defence clause. Ukraine needs to be brought under this umbrella or (given the current state of the US) at least a similar agreement with Europe's military / nuclear powers to deter further Russian aggression.
IMHO (again, sorry) Art 5 NATO-Treaty is worthless. With USA the most important member is already at least half an informal ally of Russia. Currently (!) most european states would not be willing and more important: are physically unable to deter Russia from attacking the Baltics.
IMHO, no state can and is willing to guarantee another state's security. Only a threatened state itself can manage its security by credible deterrence. Other states can help, by providing money, technology, and weapon systems.
The Budapest Memorandum was based on security guarantees and/or assurances. Ukraine should have kept the nukes instead.
Budapest Memorandum was a scam.