Lead: Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy told the Munich Security Forum on Saturday that Kyiv will only sign a peace agreement preserving its dignity if the United States provides a legally binding security guarantee for at least 20 years. The remarks come ahead of planned trilateral talks next week with the US and Russia in Geneva. Zelenskyy said Washington has so far offered a 15-year guarantee, while Ukraine insists on a firmer 20-year package tied to specific assistance for a prospective European reassurance force. He also pressed for a clear calendar for EU accession, with some officials privately flagging 2027 as a possible date.
Key Takeaways
- Zelenskyy requested a minimum 20-year US security guarantee before signing any peace deal; he says the US has offered 15 years so far.
- Trilateral talks among Ukraine, the US and Russia are scheduled for next week in Geneva after Zelenskyy’s Munich appearance.
- Zelenskyy demanded a specific, legally binding description of US support for a planned European reassurance force inside Ukraine.
- He called for a clear EU accession timeline; some EU officials have suggested 2027 as an earliest target.
- Ukraine argues elections pressed by the US to occur by 15 May can only be held two months after a ceasefire to ensure voter safety.
- Zelenskyy said Russian strikes have hit every energy plant in Ukraine, and blamed Iranian-supplied Shahed drones for new destruction.
- European leaders remain pessimistic about a quick breakthrough, with at least one predicting two more years of war and others noting Russia is not yet exhausted.
Background
The demand for long-term security guarantees follows more than three years of intense conflict since Russia’s large-scale invasion in 2022. Kyiv’s negotiators have repeatedly said any peace arrangement must protect Ukrainian sovereignty and population centers — especially in contested regions such as Donbas — and must be backed by verifiable international commitments. Western capitals, meanwhile, are divided over what guarantees the United States and NATO can legally and politically commit to provide, producing friction between Washington and European partners who want clearer commitments.
Security guarantees are intertwined with broader diplomatic and economic questions: Ukraine seeks assurances about force protection and post-conflict reconstruction while partners weigh political costs at home and relations with Russia. The request for a binding 20-year guarantee reflects Kyiv’s calculation that shorter or loosely worded promises could leave the country vulnerable if hostilities resume. Equally, debates about EU accession timing and reconstruction access to resources complicate the negotiation mix, bringing in commercial and strategic interests beyond purely military guarantees.
Main Event
Speaking in Munich, Zelenskyy framed his position as a condition for dignity-preserving peace. He warned that concessions framed as unilateral Ukrainian compromises — particularly territorial withdrawals from Donbas — were unacceptable to people living there. Zelenskyy said the US had indicated a 15-year guarantee but that Kyiv needs a legally watertight 20-year covenant specifying exact aid, logistics and the chain of command for any European reassurance force deployed on Ukrainian soil under a peace arrangement.
He also criticised the composition of the Russian delegation after an apparent change in its head negotiator, suggesting Moscow may be seeking to delay rather than seriously renegotiate. Zelenskyy raised alarm about persistent Russian strikes on energy infrastructure and singled out Iranian-made Shahed drones as a key contributor to recent damage. He warned that continued external supplies of attack drones would increase civilian harm and infrastructure loss.
The speech came as US figures — described in coverage of the Munich forum as offering conditional partnership — signalled willingness to work with Europe but also stressed limits. Comments attributed to senior US officials emphasised shared objectives with Europe, while some US interlocutors reportedly tied cooperation to wider policy conditions, including climate and trade. Separately, former US president Donald Trump publicly urged Zelenskyy to accelerate agreement talks, while Washington has pressed Kyiv on the timing of domestic elections.
Analysis & Implications
A 20-year legally binding guarantee represents a major diplomatic and legal undertaking for the United States. Binding commitments of that duration would likely require congressional involvement, precise definitions of triggers for assistance, and detailed rules about the nature and limits of military, economic and political support. For Washington, a long-term pledge raises questions about enforceability, costs and implications for NATO’s collective-defence arrangements.
For Europe, clearer US commitments could ease concerns that Washington is unwilling to codify support that would deter future Russian aggression. Yet divisions persist: some European leaders are frustrated by what they see as Washington’s reticence to specify guarantees, while others worry that binding commitments could draw them into prolonged responsibilities on the ground. Kyiv’s push for specific, time-limited guarantees is intended to reassure its population and international partners that any pause in fighting will not become a prelude to renewed pressure.
Militarily and economically, the request forces a reckoning about how long Western states are prepared to sustain high levels of support. Several European officials quoted to reporters estimate at least another two years of high-intensity support will be necessary; Ukraine’s leadership appears to be planning for long-term attrition and insisting that any peace arrangement must not undermine its security before institutions and forces are rebuilt. The interplay of guarantees, reconstruction access (including possible US involvement in Ukrainian resources), and EU accession timing will shape Kyiv’s negotiating posture.
Comparison & Data
| Item | US (reported offer) | Ukraine (demand) |
|---|---|---|
| Security guarantee duration | 15 years | Minimum 20 years |
| EU accession earliest signalled | — | Some EU officials: 2027 |
| US-requested election date | By 15 May | Two months after ceasefire |
The simple comparison above highlights the core gaps: the numeric gulf between 15 and 20 years and divergent timelines for political steps such as elections and EU accession. Those differences reflect deeper disagreements over sequencing, sovereignty guarantees, and how to balance immediate de-escalation with long-term security architecture.
Reactions & Quotes
European and US reactions were mixed: some leaders welcomed Kyiv’s clarity; others privately warned that long guarantees are complex and potentially fraught. Below are representative remarks made in public settings, paraphrased and contextualised.
“We prefer — and hope — to rebuild the world order together with our friends in Europe.”
Marco Rubio (US official, as reported)
This comment underscored a public offer of partnership with Europe, albeit with caveats about broader policy conditions attached to cooperation.
“If Ukraine withdraws from Donbas, peace would come quickly — but we cannot make concessions where Ukrainians live.”
Volodymyr Zelenskyy (President of Ukraine)
Zelenskyy used the line to reject territorial concessions he said would betray residents in contested regions, framing the 20-year guarantee as a non-negotiable protection.
“Get moving — reach a deal.”
Donald Trump (former US president)
Trump’s brief public urging added pressure on Kyiv to accelerate negotiations without specifying consequences for non-compliance.
Unconfirmed
- The strategic intent behind the reported change of Russia’s lead negotiator is unclear; it may indicate delay tactics but this has not been independently verified.
- The claim that the US successfully pressured India to stop importing Russian oil is disputed by Russian officials and lacks independent confirmation in this reporting.
- Specific terms of a purported US prosperity plan granting access to Ukrainian mineral resources have not been exchanged publicly and remain undefined.
Bottom Line
Kyiv’s demand for a 20-year, legally binding US security guarantee raises the diplomatic stakes ahead of Geneva talks. The difference between a 15-year and a 20-year pledge is not merely numeric: it speaks to Kyiv’s need for enforceable, long-term protection that can reassure its population and deter future aggression. Delivering such a guarantee would require Washington to define precise obligations, likely involving congressional and allied consultation.
For Europe, clearer US commitments could ease some transatlantic friction, but they will not erase hard political choices about burden-sharing, the scope of any reassurance force, or the sequencing of elections and accession steps. Observers should watch whether Geneva produces concrete, legally specified guarantees, how Washington frames its offer, and whether European states commit to the operational and financial details necessary to make any pledge credible.