Eija Niskanen

"Ukraine will only be able to obtain the security guarantees that Russia is willing to accept." This is the statement made by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who argued that, without Moscow's consent, such guarantees would not be effective. At the same time, Rubio identified these very guarantees as a fundamental condition for Kyiv to agree to a peace deal. Yet, this line of reasoning contains a massive contradiction: if security guarantees must be approved by the aggressor, what real protection can they possibly offer the country that has been attacked? It is as if, following a bank robbery, the police were to tell the owners that they could install a security system only if the robber deemed it acceptable—and perhaps even ensure that it isn't *too* effective, lest it annoy him. The situation is even more serious in the case of Ukraine: Russia has invaded the country, continues to bombard it, and has repeatedly demonstrated a disregard for international agreements. Since when should a nation's security be negotiated with the very party that threatens it? Security guarantees must be agreed upon with Ukraine and provided by the countries that intend to protect it. Russia may be expected to abide by an agreement, but it cannot be granted the right to decide the extent to which Ukraine can be defended. Otherwise, we are not building a security system; we are granting the aggressor a veto over the security of its victim.