The situation surrounding the political commitment of the “Group of Seven” states to defend Ukraine, announced at the NATO summit in Vilnius, is gaining momentum. On August 12, Greece joined Ukraine’s security support – in addition to the G7 countries, it became the 14th state in this list of signatories of the joint declaration. As you know, any country can join security cooperation with Ukraine, after which Ukraine must start bilateral negotiations with each of them regarding security guarantees, which will be binding. Currently, such negotiations have already begun with the USA and Great Britain.

The document signed by the G7 is of a framework nature and does not contain a specific algorithm for reaching agreements between Ukraine and world leaders. Therefore, the effectiveness of security obligations depends on the form and content of bilateral agreements. And the main question at this stage is what exactly the agreements should look like so as not to remain at the level of political agreements. In particular, some experts consider the parameters of similar security relations of the USA with Israel and Taiwan as an example of security agreements for Ukraine.

Are the security models of Israel and Taiwan relevant for Ukraine?

Both US President J. Biden and former NATO Secretary General A. Rasmussen directly mentioned the Israeli security option. The proposed security model involves the obligation of the US to maintain the so-called qualitative “technological and tactical military superiority” of Israel over the armies of its neighbors. However, Israel’s security environment is fundamentally different from Ukraine’s, because unlike russia, Israel’s potential adversaries do not have nuclear weapons.

Some experts suggest adding certain elements of the Taiwanese version to Ukraine’s security support. Therefore, in order to ensure a “quality deterrent balance and advantage on the battlefield”, it is proposed to supply Ukraine with better equipment, training and intelligence.

Of course, such a decision is already being implemented and remains a restraining factor for the advance of russian troops, but it is not about security obligations for Ukraine. The fundamental difference in the Ukrainian situation is that the US president directly declares the involvement of the American army in the defense of Taiwan in the event of an annexation attempt by China – there are no similar statements regarding Ukraine.

Therefore, Kyiv and its partners will need to choose the best option that will meet the realities of Ukraine’s security environment as much as possible. In September 2022, his vision of security guarantees for Ukraine was laid out in a document called the Kyiv Security Compact, but subsequent events made certain adjustments.

Firstly, although compliance with even political agreements is important for Western states, the international legal system lacks a centralized mechanism to enforce agreements. Thus, legally binding agreements create more reliable obligations, and their violation leads to greater political losses for the violator. That is why it is so important for Ukraine to insist on formalizing the respective promises of the states in the form of a contract for their mandatory implementation in accordance with international law.

Secondly, the text of the legally binding agreement between Ukraine and the signatory country should be formulated in such a way as to prevent its ambiguous interpretation, as happened with the Budapest Memorandum of 1994. At that time, the uncertainty in the formulation of security obligations by the leaders of the USA, Britain and russia after giving up their nuclear arsenal did not protect Ukraine from russian aggression. American representatives assured Ukrainians that in the event of an invasion of the russian federation, the United States intended to “respond”, but the exact form and scope of such a response were not discussed, so there is no reference to it in the document, which made the stipulated security obligations too weak to prevent a russian attack .

Thirdly, the most important step after signing a future security agreement with a particular signatory country is its ratification by the country’s highest legislative body to make the document part of domestic law. Taking into account the legal features of the treaty ratification procedure in Congress and the political polarization in the USA on the eve of the presidential elections, it is advisable to insist on the application by the J. Biden administration for Ukraine of a special procedure for the ratification of legally binding agreements without the need for significant involvement of Congress. Another way could be an agreement supported by the parliament, similar in form to a memorandum with codification in a separate law of the approach to support Ukraine, as the US Congress did in the case of Israel and Taiwan.

❗️In order for the proposed G7 security model not to turn into another declarative document, clear agreements with each of the states must be enshrined in national legislation in accordance with the legal and constitutional requirements of each country.