The Case For a (Future) Mutual Defense Treaty With Ukraine

In the wake of the ongoing war in Ukraine’s recent developments, it is time for Washington to think about its future relationship with Ukraine. Recently, Washington promised iron-clad, “NATO-style” security guarantees to Ukraine, albeit with a time-limited offer of 15 years. This guarantee, while sufficient time for a future presidential administration to hammer out permanent security guarantees, is not sufficient for long-term regional stability. Russia will unlikely democratize even after Putin, and will most likely be a persistent threat to both American and European interests. China will likely also be a persistent threat to Ukraine and the rest of Europe.

Such a mutual defense treaty, however, would have to go beyond basing or security agreements: The United States would invest heavily in Ukraine’s Naval and Air Forces. For its aerial forces, the United States should invest in F-35 Lightning IIs over the long term as an integral part of Ukraine’s Air Force after a mutual treaty is signed. F-35s would allow Ukraine to penetrate deep into Russia relatively undetected, while integrating with American and NATO air forces and battle networks. Problems, such as corruption and democratic stability, however, would have to be addressed in the long term to secure an F-35 agreement. In the short term, Ukraine should receive highly advanced F-16s and F-15EX Strike Eagles. These aircraft are multirole and feature advanced avionics and electronic warfare capabilities. The F-16-I “Sufa”, in service with the Israeli Air Force, would be a perfect fit for the Ukrainian military, with its advanced electronic warfare and strike capabilities.

Because Israel and Ukraine face existential threats that are often hybrid in nature, Israeli variants of American aircraft, which would be redesigned for the Ukrainian Air Force, would be a perfect addition to Ukraine’s arsenal to strike into neighboring Russian oblasts and occupied territory. Therefore, both the F-16 and F15-EX would be perfect additions, with advanced avionics, stealth, and ground-strike capabilities, while excelling at air-to-air missions. Ukraine should also consider either developing a Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) or purchasing an American model in a Foreign Military Sale (FMS).

Ukraine’s navy would also have to be heavily invested in. During the ongoing Russian Invasion, Ukraine used maritime, unmanned precision-mass to target and sink/damage much of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, as well as its shadow fleet of sanctions evasion ships. However, in the long term, a blue-water navy with a hybrid fleet of both manned and unmanned vessels would be advantageous, building on Ukraine’s innovation in unmanned naval systems. However, the Ukrainian Navy will need a slate of manned, conventional warships. Ukraine should design a fleet architecture that includes corvettes, air- and missile-defense frigates, drone carriers, and diesel attack submarines. Finally, an extended guarantee of nuclear deterrence to Ukraine would discourage another nuclear crisis like the one that occurred numerous times in Ukraine. These deterrence missions could be carried out by U.S. B-21 Bombers or by Ukrainian F-35s. This should be an integral part of any treaty with Ukraine.

In return for American assistance and defense agreements, the Ukrainians could help the U.S. with counter-drone, electronic warfare, and cyber warfare threats that the United States will likely face in the future with Russia and China. Both have invested significantly across all three areas of conflict to deny U.S. forces in the area of operations in their perceived near-abroad. Furthermore, U.S. defense industrial development could occur in Ukraine, to better equip the Ukrainian military for future, high-end fights with Russia. This would cement the Department of War’s “Arsenal of Freedom” concept. An innovation, industrial, and adaptation bloc between Ukraine, America, and its allies could be better positioned to spread lessons learned in facing threats posed by the Axis of Expansion.

The urgency of Ukraine’s survival must be tackled before a mutual defense treaty with Ukraine is ratified. Ukraine must be able to secure, at the very least, most of its territory. After the war’s conclusion, however, work on a treaty that covers all the subjects listed above will be an urgent matter. American policymakers should start now.

Jack Casey Buckley is a Research Assistant at the Yorktown Institute and an MA candidate in his second year at American University, studying United States Foreign Policy and National Security with an emphasis on cybersecurity and defense policy.