Ukraine’s endgame. Why NATO must go beyond talk.

Since the early days of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, one fundamental question has loomed large: What is the endgame? War is never just about the battlefield. It is about how it concludes and what future it secures. For Ukraine, the sacrifices made and the lives lost demand a resolution that guarantees lasting security. But as discussions about peace drag on, the most critical question remains unanswered: How does Ukraine ensure that this war does not simply pause, only to be repeated in the future?

Meloni’s bold proposal

Unlike many Western leaders who have limited their rhetoric to calling for a ceasefire, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has taken a more strategic approach. She has proposed extending NATO’s Article 5 protection to Ukraine without granting full membership—an unprecedented move that would test Russia’s intentions and provide Ukraine with the security guarantees it desperately needs. Article 5 is NATO’s cornerstone: an attack on one member is an attack on all. By extending this principle to Ukraine, NATO would send a clear message that any future aggression would trigger collective defense. This, Meloni argues, is the simplest and most effective way to achieve peace while ensuring Russia does not use a ceasefire to rearm and invade again.

The alternative? A dangerous precedent

The reality on the ground is stark. Many Ukrainians have fled Russian-occupied territories, and in their absence, sham referendums have been held to justify Russia’s annexation. If the war were to end now, with Putin retaining control of occupied regions, it would set a dangerous precedent, not just for Ukraine, but for global security. What message does that send? That aggression works? That international borders can be redrawn through force? This would only embolden other authoritarian regimes considering similar actions.

Security guarantees for ukraine

If Ukraine is unable to reclaim all its occupied territories, what does it receive in return? The answer must be ironclad security guarantees; protections that cannot be easily reversed or weakened over time. There are only two viable paths to achieving this.

The first is full NATO membership, which would offer Ukraine the strongest possible security umbrella. However, this option faces significant opposition, particularly from the United States under Donald Trump, who has dismissed Ukraine’s NATO aspirations as unrealistic. The reluctance of certain Western leaders to fast-track Ukraine’s accession further complicates this path.

The second option is extending NATO’s Article 5 protections to Ukraine without granting full membership. A proposal championed by Meloni. This approach would provide Ukraine with the same level of military protection as NATO members, deterring further Russian aggression while avoiding the lengthy and politically fraught NATO accession process. It represents a potential diplomatic middle ground that ensures Ukraine’s security while addressing geopolitical concerns within the alliance.

What is not a solution, however, is the deployment of peacekeeping forces. History has shown their ineffectiveness. Most notably in Lebanon, where peacekeepers have failed to prevent further violence. Russia would exploit such a presence to consolidate its gains rather than to facilitate genuine peace.

Will the West step up?

The question now is whether Western leaders will rally behind a concrete security plan for Ukraine or continue offering only diplomatic reassurances. Europe has started taking more initiative, but much still hinges on U.S. leadership. Trump, while advocating for a ceasefire, acknowledges that negotiations must go beyond simply stopping the fighting. Without a clear structure for lasting security, a ceasefire alone is meaningless. If NATO and its allies fail to act decisively, Ukraine and the world will be left wondering: What was the point of all this? The thousands of Ukrainians who fought and died did not do so for a temporary truce; they did so for their country’s future. That future depends on real, enforceable security measures. Meloni’s proposal, whether perfect or not, at least forces the world to address the issue head-on. The time for vague commitments is over. The time for action is now.