Putin agreed to let US and Europe protect Ukraine, official says - The Boston Globe
bostonglobe.com -- Sunday, August 17, 2025, 11:58:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: U.S.–NATO Relations, Foreign Policy & International Relations, U.S.–Russia Relations
Article 5, at the heart of the 32-member military alliance, states that an armed attack against one or more of the members shall be considered an attack against all members.
Witkoff, who had joined Secretary of State Marco Rubio for the talks Friday at a military base in Alaska, offered few details on how such an agreement would work. But it appeared to be a major shift for Putin and could serve as a workaround to his long-standing objection to Ukraine's potential NATO membership.
Outlining some of the details about the private discussions, Witkoff also said Russia had agreed to enact a law that it would not "go after any other European countries and violate their sovereignty. And there was plenty more."
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, speaking at a news conference in Brussels with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, applauded the move. "We welcome President Trump's willingness to contribute to Article 5-like security guarantees for Ukraine and the 'Coalition of the willing' -- including the European Union -- is ready to do its share," she said.
Zelensky thanked the United States for recent signals that Washington was willing to support such guarantees, but that much was unclear.
"It is important that America agrees to work with Europe to provide security guarantees for Ukraine," he said, "But there are no details how it will work, and what America's role will be, Europe's role will be and what the EU can do, and this is our main task, we need security to work in practice like Article 5 of NATO, and we consider EU accession to be part of the security guarantees," he said.
Witkoff defended Trump's decision to abandon his push that Russian agree to an immediate ceasefire, which Trump had set as a benchmark going into the meeting. Witkoff said the Republican president had pivoted toward a peace deal because so much progress was made.
"We covered almost all the other issues necessary for a peace deal," Witkoff said, without elaborating. "We began to see some moderation in the way they're thinking about getting to a final peace deal."
Rubio, who appeared on three Sunday news shows, said there was not going to be any kind of truce reached because Ukraine was not at the summit.
"Now, ultimately, if there isn't a peace agreement, if there isn't an end of this war, the president's been clear, there are going to be consequences," Rubio said on ABC's "This Week." "But we're trying to avoid that."
Rubio, who is also Trump's national security adviser, said he did not believe imposing new U.S. sanctions on Russia would force Putin to accept a ceasefire.
"The minute you issue new sanctions, your ability to get them to the table, our ability to get them to table will be severely diminished," Rubio told NBC's "Meet the Press."
He also said "we're not at the precipice of a peace agreement" and that getting there would not be easy and would take a lot of work.
"We made progress in the sense that we identified potential areas of agreement, but there remains some big areas of disagreement. So we're still a long ways off," Rubio said.
Zelensky and Europeans leaders, who heard from Trump after the summit, are scheduled to meet with him at the White House on Monday.
"I think everybody agreed that we had made progress. Maybe not enough for a peace deal, but we are on the path for the first time," Witkoff said.
He added: "The fundamental issue, which is some sort of land swap, which is obviously ultimately in the control of the Ukrainians -- that could not have been discussed at this meeting" with Putin. "We intend to discuss it on Monday. Hopefully we have some clarity on it and hopefully that ends up in a peace deal very, very soon."
Sign Our PetitionThe recent developments regarding the conflict in Ukraine and the shifting dynamics of international diplomacy present a complex interplay of historical context, geopolitical interests, and ongoing social justice struggles. As outlined in the article from The Boston Globe, the meetings between U.S. officials and Russian representatives have signaled a potential pivot in the approach towards Ukraine's security, which warrants a closer examination of the implications for global stability and the broader fight for sovereignty and human rights.
Historically, Ukraine has been at the crossroads of East and West, a position that has made it a focal point for geopolitical tensions, particularly between Russia and NATO. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the ensuing conflict in Eastern Ukraine underscored the risks faced by nations caught in the crossfire of larger powers. The principle of sovereignty is paramount here; nations should have the right to determine their own political paths without external coercion. However, the recent talks suggest a willingness to compromise this principle, especially if it serves the interests of powerful nations like the U.S. and Russia. The notion of a "Coalition of the willing" and the vague security guarantees being discussed raise questions about what it means for Ukraine’s independence and the long-term implications for regional stability.
The article hints at a significant shift in the U.S. stance towards Russia, particularly under the Trump administration. This shift also reflects a broader trend where international diplomacy often prioritizes strategic interests over the principles of justice and self-determination. The comments from military and political figures suggest a willingness to accommodate Russia, potentially at the expense of Ukraine's sovereignty—a situation that echoes historical instances where powerful nations have negotiated the fate of smaller nations without their involvement. This brings to mind the lessons from the Munich Agreement of 1938, where the fate of Czechoslovakia was decided without its input, leading to catastrophic consequences. Such historical parallels should serve as a cautionary tale for contemporary policymakers.
Moreover, the notion that U.S. sanctions against Russia could hinder negotiations highlights the complexity of international relations and the often conflicting goals of economic pressure and diplomatic resolution. Sanctions, while aimed at holding aggressors accountable, can also entrench divisions and exacerbate humanitarian crises, particularly for ordinary citizens caught in the middle of political machinations. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has already resulted in significant displacement and suffering among civilians. The U.S. and European responses should not only focus on military guarantees but also on humanitarian aid and support for civil society initiatives that promote peace and reconciliation.
Furthermore, the dialogue surrounding security guarantees for Ukraine raises critical questions about the role of international institutions like NATO and the EU in safeguarding human rights and promoting democratic values. While military alliances can provide a deterrent against aggression, they must also be accompanied by a commitment to uphold the rights of individuals and communities. The participation of leaders like Ursula von der Leyen indicates a recognition of this need, yet the lack of concrete plans and the emphasis on military strategies over diplomatic solutions suggest a disconcerting trend in international relations. The challenge lies in ensuring that security measures do not come at the expense of democratic principles, particularly in a region where history has shown the dire consequences of neglecting the voices of those directly affected.
In conclusion, the ongoing discussions about Ukraine's security and the role of international actors must be approached with a nuanced understanding of historical context and a commitment to justice. As the situation evolves, it is crucial for advocates of peace and human rights to engage in these conversations, highlighting the importance of sovereignty, self-determination, and the necessity of including diverse voices in the decision-making process. The lessons from history remind us that the stakes are high, and the choices made today will have lasting repercussions for future generations. As we navigate these complex dynamics, it is imperative to champion policies that prioritize peace, justice, and the dignity of all people.
The recent developments regarding U.S. and European security guarantees for Ukraine illustrate a complex interplay of international relations, security concerns, and the shifting dynamics of power in Eastern Europe. The discussions, as outlined in the article, reveal a significant potential shift in Russia's stance regarding Ukraine, signaling a possible avenue towards de-escalation of a conflict that has claimed countless lives and destabilized the region. However, the nuances of the agreement and its implications warrant a deeper analysis, particularly regarding the historical context of U.S.-Russia relations, NATO's role, and the ongoing struggle for Ukraine's sovereignty.
Historically, Ukraine's position has been precarious, caught between the influences of Russia and Western Europe. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 marked a pivotal moment for Ukraine, granting it independence but also leaving it vulnerable to external pressures and internal divisions. Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its support for separatist movements in Eastern Ukraine represent a blatant violation of Ukraine's sovereignty, compounded by a broader strategy of asserting influence over former Soviet states. The prospect of NATO membership for Ukraine has been a contentious issue; while it promises security guarantees, it simultaneously provokes Russian aggression. The current discussions surrounding security arrangements in lieu of NATO membership could be seen as a pragmatic approach to navigating this geopolitical minefield.
In light of these developments, it is essential for Americans to understand the implications of these agreements and take proactive steps to advocate for a resolution that prioritizes peace and stability. Engaging in informed discussions about foreign policy—particularly in forums where right-wing perspectives dominate—can help highlight the importance of diplomacy over military escalation. Advocating for comprehensive diplomatic strategies that involve not only the U.S. and Europe but also Russia and Ukraine is crucial. Support for initiatives that promote dialogue, conflict resolution, and economic development in the region can help foster a lasting peace that respects Ukraine's sovereignty without further entrenching the cycle of violence.
Moreover, the commentary surrounding the role of sanctions raises important questions about the efficacy of punitive measures in international diplomacy. While sanctions can serve as a tool for holding aggressors accountable, they often disproportionately impact civilian populations and can entrench adversarial positions. It is essential for Americans to challenge the narrative that sanctions are a one-size-fits-all solution and to advocate for a more nuanced approach that considers the humanitarian consequences of such actions. Engaging in conversations about alternative methods of diplomacy, such as economic cooperation, cultural exchanges, and joint security initiatives, can help build a more comprehensive understanding of foreign relations.
Finally, we must recognize that the path to peace is not solely the responsibility of political leaders; grassroots movements and public advocacy play a critical role in shaping foreign policy. Mobilizing public opinion in favor of peace initiatives, supporting organizations that promote dialogue and reconciliation, and fostering solidarity with Ukrainian civil society can create a momentum for change. As Americans, we have the power to influence our government’s actions through informed advocacy, whether by contacting representatives, participating in protests, or disseminating educational materials that highlight the importance of peace and cooperation. The stakes in Ukraine are high, and it is imperative to approach this situation with a commitment to justice, human rights, and a genuine desire for lasting peace.
In response to the recent developments surrounding Ukraine's security and relations with NATO, there are several actionable steps individuals can take to engage with the political landscape and advocate for a peaceful resolution. Here’s a detailed list of ideas:
### Personal Actions 1. **Educate Yourself and Others**: Stay informed about the geopolitical situation in Ukraine and the implications of international agreements. Share articles, host discussions, or engage in community forums to raise awareness.
2. **Engage in Peace Advocacy**: Support organizations focused on peacebuilding and conflict resolution. Examples include the International Crisis Group or Peace Now. Volunteer your time or donate to these organizations.
3. **Petition for Peaceful Solutions**: Create or sign petitions that advocate for peaceful resolutions to the conflict. Websites like Change.org and MoveOn.org are platforms where you can start or join such initiatives.
### Specific Actions 1. **Contact Elected Officials**: Reach out to local and national representatives to express your views on Ukraine. This can include urging them to support diplomatic efforts over military intervention.
- **Who to Write to**: - **Secretary of State Antony Blinken** - Email: blinken@state.gov - U.S. Department of State, 2201 C St NW, Washington, DC 20520
- **Senator Marco Rubio** - Email: rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact - 284 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510
- **European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen** - Email: contact@ec.europa.eu - Avenue de Beaulieu 25, 1160 Brussels, Belgium
2. **Draft a Message**: When contacting officials, consider including the following points: - Express support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. - Advocate for diplomatic solutions and urge them to prioritize peace negotiations. - Request transparency about the agreements being made and their implications for global security.
Example Message: ``` Dear [Official's Name],
I am writing to express my concern regarding the current situation in Ukraine and the discussions surrounding security guarantees. I believe it is crucial that the United States and our allies prioritize diplomatic solutions over military strategies.
I urge you to advocate for a clear plan that ensures Ukraine's sovereignty while promoting peace and stability in the region. Please consider the long-term consequences of any military involvement and work towards a resolution that prioritizes dialogue and cooperation.
Thank you for your attention to this pressing matter.
Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your Address] [Your Email] ```
3. **Join Local Advocacy Groups**: Look for local organizations focused on peace and international relations. Join their meetings, participate in campaigns, and help spread their message.
4. **Participate in Rallies and Demonstrations**: Attend peaceful protests advocating for peace in Ukraine. Use social media to promote and gather support for these events.
5. **Utilize Social Media**: Share information about the situation in Ukraine on platforms like Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. Use appropriate hashtags to reach a broader audience and engage in discussions with others interested in peace and diplomacy.
6. **Support Sanctions Against Aggression**: Advocate for targeted sanctions that hold individuals accountable for aggression, rather than broad sanctions that may harm civilians. Write to your representatives to express this viewpoint.
### Conclusion By taking these actions, individuals can contribute to the discourse surrounding Ukraine's security and advocate for a peaceful resolution to the conflict. Every voice matters, and collective action can create significant pressure on policymakers to prioritize diplomacy and peace.