The following podcast contains advertising.

To access an ad-free version of the Lawfare podcast, become a material supporter of Lawfare at

patreon.com slash lawfare. That's patreon.com slash lawfare.

Also, check out Lawfare's other podcast offerings, Rational Security, Chatter,

Lawfare No Bull, and The Aftermath.

The parameters of what we're talking about here are about provision of security assistance,

potentially some small troop contingents

that would be doing training or something like that, but we're not talking about, you know,

a treaty level pledge by the United States or these European countries to actually intervene

and fight on Ukraine's behalf.

It's the Lawfare podcast. I'm Anastasia Lapatina, Ukraine fellow at Lawfare, with Eric

Chermella, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for international peace.

Can you create a NATO-like arrangement for Ukraine that isn't NATO.

And something like Article 5 that isn't Article 5.

And to me, it's completely nonsensical.

Because NATO and Article 5 are unique and specific and have taken 70 plus years of constant policy work to maintain the credibility

of the deterrence that the alliance has.

Eric and I spoke about the history of American security commitments to allies abroad.

What made those commitments credible and what lessons Ukraine can learn as it's pushing

for its own security guarantee from the West?

To do all of that, we need to go back a little bit in history and unpack some of the various

security arrangements that the U.S. had with its allies before.

...