The ongoing war in Ukraine, now surpassing three years of relentless conflict, continues to shape Europe’s strategic landscape profoundly. President Donald Trump’s unwavering stance against Ukraine’s NATO membership underscores a broader valid concern within American conservative politics to directly confront Russia. That’s a position I agree with, as escalation of the Ukraine conflict could spark a nuclear war.
With formal NATO membership effectively off the table, and the United States possibly reluctant to provide even informal security assurances akin to those extended to Taiwan, the question arises: could Europe independently step forward and transform Ukraine into its own version of a Taiwan-style security commitment?
While the idea might sound far-fetched and not exactly a concept that can port over to Ukraine, I have heard such talk in European defense security circles of late; hence, the idea deserves consideration.
Europe’s Strategic Dilemma: The Ukraine Challenge
Europe currently faces a critical strategic crossroads. While many European countries publicly advocate robust support for Ukraine, hesitations remain regarding the depth and nature of commitments, especially if acting independently of the United States.
Historically, European defense structures have primarily operated under the American security umbrella provided by NATO, limiting independent European defense initiatives.
However, the protracted conflict in Ukraine has brought urgency to Europe’s ability to assert strategic autonomy.
Taiwan as a Model for Security Guarantees?
Taiwan could perhaps offer an instructive parallel for what a non-NATO European security commitment to Ukraine could resemble, but with clear limits on what could be possible.
Despite the absence of formal treaty obligations guaranteeing automatic military intervention, Taiwan benefits significantly from strategic ambiguity underpinned by robust defense and economic commitments from the United States.
Europe’s potential model could involve similar ambiguity—offering explicit military aid, extensive intelligence cooperation, economic support, and rigorous training programs without formalized collective defense obligations. Such an approach might serve as a potent deterrent against Russian aggression while remaining cautious enough to avoid triggering direct confrontation.
However, Taiwan’s situation is fundamentally different from Ukraine’s. Taiwan is part of an unresolved civil war originating from China’s internal political divisions dating back to 1949. China’s claims to Taiwan are deeply rooted in nationalist sentiments and historical narratives of reunification.
Conversely, Ukraine’s conflict arises from external aggression, specifically Russia’s invasion and annexation of territories, making the conflict clearly international rather than internal or civil.
Europe’s Capability and Commitment Challenges
Yet, translating this idea into actionable policy would be fraught with significant challenges. Europe, lacking America’s military power projection capabilities and cohesive diplomatic clout, would need substantial structural reforms and investments to independently guarantee Ukrainian security.
Additionally, European unity remains fractured regarding defense policies and the depth of confrontation with Russia. Nations like Poland and the Baltics are deeply supportive of robust commitments to Ukraine, whereas countries such as Germany and France often demonstrate greater caution due to economic ties, energy dependencies, and domestic political considerations.
For such a security guarantee to succeed, Europe would need to present a unified, credible deterrent posture. This would likely require increased military spending, significant coordination among European nations, and enhanced capabilities in intelligence, cyber warfare, and rapid deployment forces.
Without these elements, a European security commitment risks appearing symbolic and ineffective, potentially emboldening rather than deterring Russian aggression.
Risk of Escalation and Miscalculation
Critics would highlight the inherent risks of adopting a Taiwan-style ambiguous security approach. Ambiguity might inadvertently invite miscalculations by Russia, encouraging Kremlin strategists to test the limits of Europe’s resolve.
Without explicit commitments, Moscow might gamble that Europe would ultimately avoid escalation, thereby undermining the very deterrence the guarantees aim to establish. Europe’s mixed historical track record of unity and decisive action in international conflicts exacerbates these risks.
Moreover, without the backing of the United States, Europe’s ambiguous guarantees might lack credibility. Russia could interpret Europe’s guarantees as hollow rhetoric rather than genuine deterrents.
The credibility of deterrence hinges on the perceived willingness and capability to respond decisively—both factors Europe must convincingly demonstrate if it aims to succeed with such an approach.
Potential Benefits of European-Led Security Commitments
Nevertheless, proponents argue that a European-led initiative could provide substantial benefits. It could foster European strategic autonomy, strengthening Europe’s capacity to manage regional conflicts independently.
Such an initiative would also reinforce the continent’s geopolitical influence, potentially reshaping power dynamics in Eastern Europe and compelling Russia to reconsider aggressive actions.
Furthermore, robust security assurances to Ukraine from Europe could potentially de-escalate tensions by providing Kyiv with the necessary defensive capabilities and economic stability, reducing the immediate threat of further aggression without provoking an outright NATO-Russia confrontation.
The Path Forward for Europe
Ultimately, transforming Ukraine into Europe’s own version of Taiwan-like security guarantees is feasible but complex. It requires unprecedented levels of European cooperation, substantial military investments, and careful diplomatic maneuvering to establish credible deterrence without triggering unmanageable escalation.
As Europe weighs this significant strategic pivot, Ukraine’s future security hangs in the balance. Europe’s decisions in the coming years will profoundly influence not only Ukraine’s fate but also the broader trajectory of European security and autonomy.
The Taiwan model presents an intriguing template, yet Europe’s unique geopolitical realities demand careful tailoring to ensure that commitments are credible, sustainable, and genuinely effective.
About the Author: Harry J. Kazianis
Harry J. Kazianis (@Grecianformula) is Editor-In-Chief of 19FortyFive and President of Rogue States Project, the think tank arm of the publication. Kazianis recently served as Senior Director of National Security Affairs at the Center for the National Interest. He also served as Executive Editor of its publishing arm, The National Interest. Kazianis has held various roles at The National Interest, including Senior Editor and Managing Editor over the last decade. Harry is a recognized expert on national security issues involving North & South Korea, China, the Asia-Pacific, Europe, and general U.S. foreign policy and national security challenges. Kazianis previously served as part of the foreign policy team for the 2016 presidential campaign of Senator Ted Cruz. Kazianis also managed the foreign policy communications efforts of the Heritage Foundation, served as Editor-In-Chief of the Tokyo-based The Diplomat magazine, Editor of RealClearDefense, and as a WSD-Handa Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS): PACNET.
