Lord Ashcroft: Only legally binding commitments to defend Ukraine will prevent further war

Lord Ashcroft KCMG PC is an international businessman, philanthropist, author and pollster. For more information on his work, visit lordashcroft.com. This article appeared first in the Kyiv Post.

Ukraine peace talks have reached a critical point, with the United States offering Kyiv what have been described as “platinum” security guarantees. Negotiations, now involving European allies, have come a long way from the initial 28-point peace plan that a few weeks ago threw the continent into a frenzy.

A current peace deal, discussed in Berlin over two days this week and taken back to Washington, has introduced what in March would have been unthinkable – recalling the infamous shouting match between White House officials and the Ukrainian President – namely NATO Article 5-style security guarantees provided by the United States.

According to reports, these would include aerial cover by American F-35 fighter jets and long-range, high-precision Tomahawk missiles or similar systems stationed in a neighbouring NATO country and ready for use should Russia violate the deal.

The provision of Tomahawk missiles has been under discussion in the White House for some time and would represent an unprecedented show of support for Ukraine if approved. To date, only four countries have received Tomahawks from the United States: the UK, the first foreign buyer in the mid-1990s, followed by Japan, Australia, and, since spring 2025, the Netherlands. All of these systems are ship- or submarine-launched and would require adaptation to Ukrainian operational realities, underlining the extent of US commitment to ensuring Ukraine holds strong cards.

No US troops would be based on Ukrainian soil, but discussions are underway about a mediating force to monitor a ceasefire and intervene before escalation. Given what followed the Russia-Ukraine Minsk Agreements of 2014 and 2015, and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s failure to monitor violations effectively, a US-led mission would be crucial to ensuring a sustainable ceasefire. It is worth recalling that under those agreements, mediated by Germany and France, Ukraine suffered more than 14,000 casualties between 2015 and 2022.

This American monitoring mission would be distinct from – but complementary to – the currently discussed European-led peacekeeping force. That force was the central premise behind the creation of the Coalition of the Willing earlier this year, which has yet to establish clear guidelines for deployment, rules of engagement, or an operationalised mandate. These details may prove decisive for the depth of US commitment, meaning Europe must urgently get its act together.

Key questions remain unanswered. Where would European troops be stationed – in western Ukraine or around critical infrastructure? Would specially trained contingents be placed along the vast Ukrainian frontline as a tripwire against violations? In what numbers, with which capabilities, and drawn from which nations?

While the Coalition of the Willing was initially proposed by France, Britain (under Sir Keir Starmer and with a limited appetite for risk) has appeared quietly relieved that a better-resourced French infantry might take the lead on deploying troops in numbers the UK itself could not muster. Yet the French are in scarcely better shape than the British when it comes to land army. And what role will Germany – Europe’s newly emerged leader – play in securing NATO’s eastern flank?

Europe needs a clear framework capable of operating across multiple Ukrainian theatres, on land, in the air, and at sea. Ukraine’s accession this year as an associate member of the Joint Expeditionary Force may provide an opportunity to rely on the Nordic Eight to safeguard maritime routes in the Black Sea, with Türkiye’s involvement.

Air defence, in addition to advanced US systems, must be reinforced by European deployments. The United Kingdom has led by example with a prompt announcement of £600 million in air-defence support. British-French Storm Shadow/SCALP missiles should help protect Ukrainian skies, but they will require reinforcement from German Taurus systems.

Defending Ukraine’s airspace is critical under any ceasefire if the country is to rebuild and recover. For foreign investors, multinational banks, and insurers to return after four years of attrition, the security of land-based assets will be a minimum requirement. Western governments will need to back private capital to mitigate risk and guarantee returns. All of this must be embedded in any peace deal. One of Russia’s core objectives in launching this war was to erase Ukraine as a democratic, successful, and prosperous state. Only reconstruction and sustained foreign investment can ensure Ukraine’s long-term survival.

Sanctions imposed on Russia by the United States and Europe must not be lifted immediately once a deal is struck. Their easing can be discussed, but only after a defined period (for example, a full year) of zero violations by Russia. Even then, any rollback must be measured and conditional.

In an age of asymmetric warfare, the West must retain economic leverage for as long as possible. Premature sanctions relief risks emboldening the aggressor – ideologically and financially – potentially encouraging further strikes, not only against Ukraine but deeper into Europe. The US Congress should keep its proposed Sanction Russia Bill ready as a Damocles’ sword, just as the EU must maintain its decision to freeze Russian sovereign assets indefinitely.

Finally, and most importantly, Ukraine has learned hard lessons from repeated violations of international agreements. From the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, in which the United States and the United Kingdom guaranteed its territorial integrity, to the paralysis of the UN Security Council, despite Ukraine being a founding UN member, promises have repeatedly failed.

This time, a young but battle-hardened democracy is right to demand a legally binding agreement, not another declaratory memorandum. Any state guaranteeing peace in Ukraine – and in Europe – must be legally bound to do so, particularly amid political volatility across the continent. Such an agreement must be ratified by national parliaments, establish clear responsibilities for each signatory, and spell out concrete actions in the event of renewed aggression.

Only in this way can the West prevent a Third World War from taking root on European soil in the 21st Century.