Between Guarantees and Credibility

The announcement of a “reassurance force” for Ukraine, backed by 26 nations, was meant as a symbol of unity. Yet events overnight, drones intercepted over Polish territory, and Warsaw’s decision to invoke NATO’s Article 4, reminded us that security guarantees are not abstract. They are tested in real time, under conditions of ambiguity, and judged not by words but by presence.

Guarantees have long been tools of reassurance. They signal intent, demonstrate alignment, and can create breathing space. Yet their strength is never absolute. In diplomacy, a guarantee is only as strong as the perception that it can be enforced.

This is why responses matter as much as commitments. Moscow’s denial of intent aimed to reduce pressure while sowing doubt. Meanwhile, allies debated how to frame their assurances without provoking further escalation. The lesson is clear: security cannot rest on symbolism alone.

For Europe, the challenge lies in balancing reliance on U.S. commitments with the pursuit of strategic autonomy. Washington remains indispensable, yet its signals are often succinct, subject to shifting political priorities. A brief remark on social media does not substitute for sustained presence.

The downing of drones over Polish territory, and Warsaw’s decision to activate NATO consultations under Article 4, brought the issue out of theory and into practice. For the alliance, the incident highlighted a perennial dilemma: respond visibly and risk escalation or respond quietly and risk doubt.

Guarantees and deployments may be visible, but their foundation is invisible: trust. Citizens must trust their institutions; allies must trust each other; adversaries must trust that deterrence will hold. Without this credibility, even the most ambitious commitments remain fragile.

At SRC, we see security guarantees as more than formal commitments. They are quiet tests of credibility, measured not in declarations, but in presence, preparation, and trust.