US, Russia Agreed on Ukraine Security Pledges, Witkoff Says | Today News
livemint.com -- Sunday, August 17, 2025, 10:26:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: Foreign Policy & International Relations, U.S.–Russia Relations, U.S.–NATO Relations
Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin agreed at their summit in Alaska last week that the US would be able to offer Ukraine security guarantees, according to Steve Witkoff, Trump's special envoy.
"We got to an agreement that the US and other nations could effectively offer Article 5-like language to Ukraine," Witkoff said on CNN's State of the Union, referring to the NATO provision that says if one ally is attacked, it is considered an attack on all member states.
But Witkoff, who attended the leaders' meeting at a military base in Alaska on Friday, said their agreement stopped short of allowing Ukraine to achieve its longstanding goal of NATO membership.
"Putin says the red flag is NATO admission," Witkoff said.
Russia went into the summit demanding that Ukraine give up territory that Russia seized in its three-year war. Witkoff said Putin "made some concessions with regards with all five of those regions," and added, "There needs to be a discussion of Donetsk" with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy when he meets Trump at the White House on Monday, suggesting there is room to negotiate.
European leaders will be joining Zelenskiy at the White House meeting with Trump, in a show of support as Ukraine's leader faces growing US pressure to agree to a quick peace deal with Russia that involves giving up territory.
Trump on Sunday insisted that he made "BIG PROGRESS ON RUSSIA" in a post on Truth Social.
While Trump had gone into Friday's summit with Putin seeking a ceasefire, he'd emerged saying he was going to focus on a final settlement.
Witkoff said the switch was made because Putin and Trump made "so much progress" that there was no need for a ceasefire period in which the details would be worked out.
"The thesis of a ceasefire is that you'd be discussing all of these issues that we already resolved" in Alaska, Witkoff said on CNN, noting that they couldn't finalize any discussion of land swaps because Zelenskiy needed to be directly involved. Trump didn't invite Zelenskiy to the meeting in Alaska.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio told NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday the US hasn't ruled out a ceasefire in Ukraine as part of the goal of brokering a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine, while arguing that additional sanctions would be unlikely to force Putin to accept a deal.
Rubio also said that the US remains committed to crafting a deal that includes both "what the border lines are going to look like" and Russia accepting that Ukraine "is a sovereign country."
"They have a right, like every sovereign country does in the world, to have, to enter into security alliances with other countries to prevent an invasion in the future, to prevent threats to their national security," Rubio said on CBS's Face the Nation. "That's not an unreasonable request."
Rubio said no US sanctions on Russia have been relaxed and the US may eventually end up imposing tougher penalties if talks stall.
"And so those options remain to the president," he said. "The minute he takes those steps, all talks stop."
Engaging with Russia is necessary to end the war, "as distasteful people may find it," Rubio said.
Asked whether a ceasefire is off the table, Rubio said, "No, it's not off the table." At the same time, he added, "Let's be frank, this is not our war."
With assistance from Tony Czuczka, María Paula Mijares Torres and Josh Wingrove.
©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
Sign Our PetitionThe recent discussions surrounding Ukraine's security situation, particularly the summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, underscore a complex geopolitical landscape shaped by historical tensions and the ongoing struggle for national sovereignty. The idea that the United States could extend security guarantees to Ukraine, akin to NATO's Article 5 provisions, raises critical questions about the principles of international alliances and the implications of territorial disputes in Eastern Europe. This highlights not only the fragility of Ukraine's sovereignty but also the broader ramifications of great power politics, which often leave smaller nations vulnerable to the whims of larger states.
Historically, Ukraine's position has been precarious, situated at a crossroads between Europe and Russia. After gaining independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine has grappled with its identity and political alignment, often oscillating between Western integration and Russian influence. The annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014 and the ongoing conflict in the Donbas region have demonstrated the urgent need for robust international support for Ukraine's territorial integrity and political autonomy. The current negotiations, which suggest potential compromises on Ukrainian territory, echo a troubling historical pattern where powerful nations dictate the terms of peace, often at the expense of national self-determination.
Moreover, the suggestion that Ukraine might have to cede territory to secure a peace deal with Russia raises significant ethical concerns. It echoes the historical injustices faced by nations caught in the geopolitical crossfire, where the sacrifices of some are deemed necessary for the perceived stability of the powerful. This dynamic is reminiscent of past conflicts, where colonial and imperial powers negotiated borders without the consent of those directly affected. The international community must recognize that true peace cannot be built on the backs of the oppressed; rather, it must involve genuine dialogue that respects the rights and agency of all involved parties, particularly the voices of Ukrainians themselves.
The involvement of U.S. leaders in these discussions, particularly figures like Secretary of State Marco Rubio, further complicates the narrative. Rubio's insistence on the sovereignty of Ukraine and the right to form security alliances speaks to a broader principle of self-determination that is often invoked in international relations. However, the reality is that U.S. foreign policy has historically prioritized strategic interests over the democratic aspirations of other nations. The inconsistency in U.S. support for democracy abroad raises questions about the sincerity of these security guarantees. Are they genuinely aimed at empowering Ukraine, or are they merely a means to counter Russian influence in the region?
As the situation evolves, it is imperative for advocates of social justice and human rights to remain vigilant. The discourse surrounding Ukraine's sovereignty and security provides a critical lens through which to analyze broader issues of imperialism and the right to self-determination in global politics. Engaging with right-wing perspectives, one could highlight the historical precedence of supporting oppressed nations against imperial powers. This is not merely an issue of national borders but of affirming the dignity and rights of all people to live free from coercion and aggression. By advocating for a fair and just approach to international relations that prioritizes the voices of the marginalized, we can contribute to a more equitable global order that recognizes the interconnectedness of all nations.
The recent agreement between the United States and Russia concerning Ukraine's security situation raises significant concerns about the balance of power in Eastern Europe and the implications of international diplomacy. The discussions, which took place at a summit in Alaska between former President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, highlight the complex interplay of geopolitics, national sovereignty, and the historical context of the Ukraine-Russia conflict. While it may seem that the U.S. is taking a step towards providing security assurances to Ukraine, the absence of a definitive commitment to NATO membership for Ukraine raises questions about the credibility and sincerity of these pledges.
Historically, Ukraine has been caught between competing spheres of influence since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. The ongoing conflict, which escalated in 2014 with Russia's annexation of Crimea and support for separatist movements in eastern Ukraine, has left the nation in a precarious position. Ukraine's aspirations for NATO membership have been met with staunch opposition from Russia, which views NATO's eastward expansion as a direct threat to its national security. The recent discussions, as articulated by Steve Witkoff, suggest a willingness to negotiate security guarantees that resemble NATO's Article 5, but they fall short of the comprehensive support Ukraine needs to ensure its territorial integrity and sovereignty. This half-measure not only undermines Ukraine's position but also sends a troubling message about the reliability of U.S. commitments in the region.
As Americans, it is crucial to recognize that our government’s foreign policy decisions have far-reaching consequences for the lives of individuals in conflict zones like Ukraine. To advocate for a more robust and principled U.S. stance on Ukrainian security, citizens must engage in grassroots activism and hold their representatives accountable. This includes pushing for dialogues that prioritize Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as supporting policies that provide substantial military and economic assistance to bolster Ukraine's defense capabilities. It is essential to communicate the message that a strong Ukraine is not only vital for the region but also for global stability, as it stands as a bulwark against authoritarian expansionism.
Moreover, it is important to educate ourselves and others about the historical context of the region and the implications of appeasement in international relations. The lessons learned from the Munich Agreement of 1938 should not be lost on us; yielding to authoritarian powers can lead to catastrophic outcomes. Engaging in discussions about the importance of international alliances and collective security can empower citizens to advocate for a U.S. foreign policy that does not compromise the principles of democracy and human rights for the sake of short-term diplomatic expediency. The U.S. must be reminded of its responsibility as a global leader to support nations striving for self-determination against oppressive regimes.
Furthermore, it is paramount that we challenge the narratives presented by political figures who may downplay the significance of Ukraine's plight for the sake of political expediency or personal gain. For instance, statements made by figures like Marco Rubio highlight a commitment to Ukraine's sovereignty, yet it is critical to scrutinize whether such rhetoric translates into actionable policy. Engaging in public discourse that emphasizes the need for a consistent and principled approach to foreign affairs can create pressure on lawmakers to align their actions with their words. By fostering informed conversations around these issues, citizens can cultivate a climate where supporting democratic nations against aggressive authoritarianism becomes a bipartisan priority.
In conclusion, the agreement reached between the U.S. and Russia regarding Ukraine's security situation illustrates the complexities of international diplomacy and the ongoing struggle for sovereignty in Eastern Europe. As engaged citizens, we must advocate for strong and unwavering support for Ukraine, recognizing that its fate is intertwined with the broader fight against authoritarianism. By educating ourselves and others, holding our leaders accountable, and fostering a deeper understanding of the historical context, we can actively participate in shaping a foreign policy that aligns with the values of democracy, human rights, and national sovereignty. The time is now for Americans to stand together in support of Ukraine and assert that our national interests must focus on promoting peace and stability through solidarity rather than appeasement.
Analyzing the recent developments involving the U.S., Russia, and Ukraine reveals a complex geopolitical landscape that demands our attention and action. As citizens concerned about global peace and sovereignty, there are several avenues we can pursue to advocate for a just and peaceful resolution to the situation in Ukraine.
### Personal Actions We Can Take:
1. **Educate Ourselves and Others:** - Understanding the history and complexities of the Ukraine-Russia conflict is crucial. Share articles, books, and documentaries that provide in-depth perspectives on the issue. - Organize or participate in community discussions to foster awareness.
2. **Contact Elected Representatives:** - Write to your congressional representatives and express your views on U.S. involvement in Ukraine and the importance of supporting Ukrainian sovereignty in negotiations. - Sample message: ``` Dear [Representative's Name],
I am writing to express my concern regarding the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the recent negotiations between the U.S. and Russia. It is essential that the U.S. prioritizes the sovereignty of Ukraine and supports its right to determine its alliances without external pressure. I urge you to advocate for diplomatic solutions that respect Ukraine's territorial integrity and promote a lasting peace.
Thank you for your attention to this critical issue.
Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your Address] [Your Email] ```
3. **Petitions:** - Find or create petitions that advocate for peace in Ukraine and support for its sovereignty. Websites like Change.org or MoveOn.org often have existing petitions you can sign. - Example petition: "Support Ukraine's Sovereignty and Right to Self-Determination" can be created on platforms like Change.org. - Share these petitions on social media to gather more support.
4. **Support Humanitarian Aid:** - Contribute to organizations providing humanitarian aid to Ukrainians affected by the conflict. Examples include: - **GlobalGiving (www.globalgiving.org)**: They have initiatives supporting Ukrainian families and refugees. - **Doctors Without Borders (www.doctorswithoutborders.org)**: They provide medical care in conflict zones.
5. **Engage with Local Activist Groups:** - Join or support local groups advocating for peace and solidarity with Ukraine. Look for events, rallies, or forums in your area to participate in. - Examples include local chapters of international peace organizations or human rights groups.
6. **Utilize Social Media:** - Use platforms like Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram to raise awareness about the situation in Ukraine. Share facts, articles, and calls to action. - Create a hashtag campaign that emphasizes support for Ukraine's sovereignty.
7. **Write to Media Outlets:** - Submit letters to the editor of local newspapers expressing your views on the importance of a peaceful resolution and the need for the U.S. to support Ukraine's sovereignty. - Example contact for a national outlet: - **The New York Times:** letters@nytimes.com
8. **Engage with Think Tanks and Policy Organizations:** - Reach out to think tanks that focus on foreign policy, such as the Brookings Institution or the Center for Strategic and International Studies, to express your support for policies that uphold Ukraine's sovereignty. - Share your thoughts via email or through their public comment platforms.
### Who to Write To: - **U.S. Senators:** - Find your state senators at [www.senate.gov](https://www.senate.gov) and use their contact information to express your views. - **House Representatives:** - Find your House representative at [www.house.gov](https://www.house.gov) for contact details.
### Sample Email Addresses: - **Senator [Your State's Name]:** [senatorlastname@senate.gov] - **Representative [Your Representative's Name]:** [representativelastname@house.gov]
### Addresses for Postal Mail: - **U.S. Senate:** - [Senator Name] - U.S. Senate - Washington, D.C. 20510
- **U.S. House of Representatives:** - [Representative Name] - U.S. House of Representatives - Washington, D.C. 20515
### Conclusion By taking these steps, we can contribute to a larger movement advocating for peace, human rights, and the protection of national sovereignty. Every action counts, and collective efforts can lead to meaningful changes in U.S. foreign policy regarding Ukraine.