1. Even if we imagine that this is possible, its implementation is neither quick nor simple. Ukraine's relations with the Alliance are based not only on the Constitution of Ukraine, but also on the decision of the 2008 Bucharest Summit, where it was clearly stated: Ukraine will become a member of NATO.To cancel this decision, a unanimous vote of all 32 member states is required. Moreover, this would require revising the NATO Treaty itself, particularly Article 10 on the "open door principle," which stipulates that any country can become a member of the Alliance. If this possibility is closed for Ukraine, then the treaty must explicitly state that the right to join NATO belongs to all countries except Ukraine."In fact, such conditions legitimize the Russian logic of "buffer zones" and the division of European states into "grades" depending on their proximity to Russian borders. This is tantamount to NATO's capitulation to Putin. Without the participation of all member countries, any clause on "renunciation" will have no legal consequences. And internal consultations of such scale could take years."2. The prospect of NATO membership is important as an element of security guarantees after the cessation of hostilities. Literally a week ago, Thailand and Cambodia, whose war was "stopped" by the American president several months ago, resumed hostilities again. This is an example of ending a war without security guarantees: the war can suddenly flare up again and no one will help stop it.There are several common models of security guarantees, each with its own price. To simplify: the stronger the guarantees (for example, NATO membership), the smaller the subsequent investments by guarantor countries in the Ukrainian army can be. If the guarantees are weak, investments in the Ukrainian Armed Forces must be significantly larger.Obviously, among all possible guarantees, the cheapest is precisely Ukraine's integration into NATO. In this case, Ukraine becomes part of the collective security system, and the militarization of the Ukrainian Armed Forces occurs on par with other Alliance members and according to common standards. All other options are significantly more expensive. It is already clear that the U.S. does not plan to bear the main financial burden and will shift it to Europe. This is where the discussions about using frozen Russian assets come from.3. If the media are to be believed, guarantees "analogous to Article 5 of the NATO Treaty" are currently being discussed. However, it is not entirely clear what exactly is meant, since NATO security guarantees include not only rights under Article 5, but also serious obligations of member countries. Extending such guarantees to Ukraine without imposing corresponding obligations seems unrealistic.It appears that these discussions are more of a negotiating nature. Putin has repeatedly stated that Ukraine's non-admission to NATO is a matter of principle for him. Therefore, the American side is probably using such "trial balloons" to gauge the Kremlin's reaction to a scenario in which Ukraine receives de facto NATO guarantees without formal membership."Security guarantees are the key to ending the war. They determine whether peace will be lasting. The conditions for ending the war in Ukraine are shaping a new European security architecture for decades to come. The old system was destroyed by the Russian invasion and the arrival of a new administration in the White House."What the new one will be is being decided right now. But regardless of formal wording regarding NATO membership, one thing is obvious: Ukraine will become a central element of the future European security system.SourceAbout the author. Mykola Kniazhytskyi, journalist, Ukrainian lawmaker.The editorial board does not always share the opinions expressed by blog or column authors.