Truth and Resistance Dove Logo
Know what you should know!

Home     Categories     Search     Subscribe

Trump says 'big progress' made with Russia as Witkoff outlines Nato-style security guarantees for Ukraine

firstpost.com -- Sunday, August 17, 2025, 8:25:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: U.S.–Russia Relations, Foreign Policy & International Relations, U.S.–NATO Relations
Trump says 'big progress' made with Russia as Witkoff outlines Nato-style security guarantees for Ukraine

US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin shake hands during a press conference following their meeting to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, in Anchorage, Alaska, US, August 15, 2025. File Image/Reuters

US President Donald Trump on Sunday said "big progress" had been made with Russia towards resolving the conflict in Ukraine, just hours after his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"BIG PROGRESS ON RUSSIA. STAY TUNED! President DJT," Trump wrote on his social media platform, Truth Social.

Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff described the outcome of the Alaska summit as "game-changing." Speaking to CNN's State of the Union, he said, "We were able to win the following concession: that the United States could offer Article 5-like protection, which is one of the real reasons why Ukraine wants to be in NATO."

Witkoff noted this was the first time Putin had agreed to such a proposal. "Putin has said that a red flag is NATO admission," he said. "So what we were discussing was ... that the United States and other European nations could effectively offer Article 5-like language to cover a security guarantee."

He added, "It was the first time we had ever heard the Russians agree to that."

Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, also known as the Washington Treaty, underpins NATO's core principle of collective defence. It states that an armed attack against one member is considered an attack against all.

If carried forward, the understanding would mark a major shift in Moscow's position and provide Ukraine with an alternative to NATO membership, something Putin has consistently opposed. Witkoff emphasised, however, that any deal would ultimately depend on whether Kyiv accepted the proposal.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio cautioned there would be "additional consequences" if no ceasefire was achieved, echoing Trump's warning before his talks with Putin. He also underlined that no truce could be reached without Ukraine's direct participation in negotiations.

Expand

Sign Our Petition


Opinion:

The recent summit between President Trump and President Putin, held at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska, marks a significant pivot in the geopolitical landscape concerning Ukraine and Russia. Trump's proclamation of "big progress" towards resolving the conflict begs a deeper examination of the implications of such a statement, not only for the immediate regional stability but also for the historical context of U.S.-Russia relations. The discussion surrounding NATO-style security guarantees for Ukraine, as presented by Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff, offers a fascinating entry point into understanding how global power dynamics are shaped and reshaped in the face of conflict.

To grasp the significance of this development, one must first consider the history of NATO's expansion and its impact on Russian-U.S. relations. Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has expanded its membership to include several Eastern European countries, a move that has been perceived by Russia as a direct threat to its sphere of influence. This perception was not unfounded, as the U.S. has historically used military alliances to assert its power and counter potential adversaries. The idea of providing Ukraine with Article 5-like security guarantees represents a potential shift in this narrative, as it acknowledges Ukraine's strategic importance while simultaneously navigating the treacherous waters of Russian opposition. However, it is vital to remember that security guarantees are only as strong as the political will behind them, and the historical reluctance of Western powers to intervene decisively in conflicts involving former Soviet states raises questions about the sincerity and feasibility of these promises.

Moreover, the notion that such an agreement could be reached, contingent on Ukraine's acceptance, highlights the ongoing struggles of nations caught between great powers. Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity have been under siege since the annexation of Crimea in 2014, and the broader context of conflict in the Donbas region underscores the tragic reality of many nations that find themselves pawns in a larger geopolitical game. The potential for a "NATO-lite" agreement may offer some hope for Ukraine, but it also risks diluting the urgency of a comprehensive peace process that addresses the root causes of the conflict. The inclusion of Ukrainian voices in these negotiations is critical, and any agreement that marginalizes or overlooks their agency will likely be met with skepticism not only from Kyiv but also from international observers who have witnessed the devastating consequences of ignoring the needs and rights of people in conflict zones.

The commentary from U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio regarding "additional consequences" if a ceasefire is not achieved raises further concerns about the consequences of militarized diplomacy. The threat of escalatory measures, particularly in a region already teetering on the brink of broader conflict, can further entrench divisions and hinder peaceful negotiations. The history of U.S. foreign policy is rife with examples where military posturing has led to unintended consequences, often exacerbating humanitarian crises rather than alleviating them. As advocates for social justice and peace, it is crucial to urge a diplomatic approach that prioritizes dialogue and cooperation over militaristic threats. Historical lessons from the Cold War era remind us that long-term stability often arises from thoughtful engagement rather than coercion.

In conclusion, while Trump's announcement of a potential breakthrough with Russia could be seen as a diplomatic win, it is essential to critically evaluate the underlying motivations and potential ramifications of such agreements. The historical context of NATO expansion, the agency of Ukrainian voices in the peace process, and the implications of U.S. military rhetoric all play pivotal roles in shaping the future of this conflict. As discussions unfold, it is vital for advocates of peace and justice to remain vigilant, urging a focus on inclusive dialogue and a commitment to genuine cooperation that prioritizes the lives and rights of people affected by these geopolitical machinations. The lessons of history remind us that true progress is measured not merely in political statements but in the tangible improvements to the lives of those living in the shadow of conflict.

Action:

The recent developments surrounding the potential diplomatic thaw between the United States and Russia, as articulated during President Trump's meeting with President Putin, raise significant questions about the approach to foreign policy and international relations in the 21st century. The acknowledgment of "big progress" by Trump, alongside the offer of NATO-like security guarantees for Ukraine, suggests a willingness to explore alternative frameworks for conflict resolution. This shift not only highlights a possible change in U.S. strategy but also underscores the complexities of negotiating with a nation that has historically viewed NATO as a direct threat.

To understand the gravity of this situation, we must delve into the historical context surrounding NATO and its expansion in Eastern Europe after the Cold War. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, NATO has expanded its membership to include many former Eastern Bloc countries, leading to rising tensions between Russia and the West. This enlargement has often been characterized as a betrayal of assurances given to Russia during the negotiations that ended the Cold War. By exploring the possibility of "Article 5-like" guarantees without full NATO membership, the U.S. could be taking a momentous step towards mitigating these tensions while acknowledging Russia's security concerns.

From a political standpoint, the implications of such negotiations are profound. They challenge the long-standing narrative that NATO membership is the only viable security structure for states like Ukraine. By proposing alternative security guarantees, the U.S. could foster a more stable regional environment and encourage dialogue, rather than aggression. It would be prudent for the American public to critically assess this proposal and advocate for a diplomatic approach that emphasizes dialogue and mutual respect. The lesson from historical conflicts is clear: military posturing often leads to escalated tensions, while open negotiations can pave the way for peace.

As concerned citizens, we must engage with our representatives and advocate for policies that prioritize diplomacy over militarization. This could involve lobbying for increased funding for diplomatic initiatives, supporting organizations that promote peace-building efforts, and participating in community discussions that emphasize the importance of international cooperation. By fostering a culture that values diplomacy, we can push back against narratives that suggest military solutions are the only viable options in international relations.

Educationally, it is crucial to engage with the complexities of this geopolitical landscape. We should encourage learning and discussions about the historical missteps of U.S. foreign policy, particularly those that led to unnecessary conflicts and the erosion of global trust. By equipping ourselves and our peers with knowledge about global politics, the history of NATO, and the nuances of U.S.-Russia relations, we can engage more effectively in discourse with those who may hold opposing views. Understanding the broader implications of security guarantees and the historical context behind them can serve as powerful ammunition in advocating for a future that prioritizes peace, cooperation, and respect among nations.

In conclusion, the potential for new security arrangements in Ukraine must not simply be viewed through the lens of partisan politics but rather as a pivotal moment for rethinking our approach to international relations. By embracing diplomacy, advocating for peace, and educating ourselves and others about the historical context of these discussions, we can contribute to a more constructive dialogue that seeks to resolve conflicts through understanding rather than confrontation.

To Do:

The recent discussions between the U.S. and Russia regarding the conflict in Ukraine highlight an important moment in international relations with profound implications for global peace and security. As individuals concerned about the situation, there are several actions we can take to influence the outcomes and promote a just resolution. Here’s a detailed list of ideas and actions we can personally pursue:

### Personal Actions to Support Peace in Ukraine

1. **Educate Yourself and Others** - Stay informed about the situation in Ukraine, the historical context, and the broader geopolitical implications. Share information through discussions, social media, or community events.

2. **Sign Petitions** - Petitions are a powerful way to express collective concern. Look for petitions advocating for peace negotiations and support for Ukraine's sovereignty. Some platforms to find relevant petitions include: - **Change.org**: Search for petitions related to Ukraine and international diplomacy. - **Care2**: Find environmental and peace-related petitions. - Example Petition: “Support Ukraine’s Right to Self-Determination” on Change.org.

3. **Contact Your Representatives** - Reach out to your local representatives to voice your concerns about the U.S. foreign policy regarding Ukraine. - Sample Contact: - **U.S. House of Representatives**: Find your representative at [house.gov](https://www.house.gov). - **U.S. Senate**: Find your senator at [senate.gov](https://www.senate.gov). - You can email them directly or use the contact forms on their official websites.

4. **Draft Letters and Emails** - When contacting your representatives, express your views clearly. Here’s a sample outline for your communication: - **Subject**: Support for Ukraine’s Sovereignty and Peace Initiatives - **Body**: - Introduce yourself and your concern for the situation in Ukraine. - Urge them to prioritize diplomatic solutions and support peaceful negotiations. - Emphasize the importance of protecting international laws and Ukraine’s sovereignty. - Request that they advocate for humanitarian aid and support for Ukrainian citizens.

5. **Participate in Local Activism** - Join or support local peace organizations that focus on international diplomacy. This can include attending rallies, discussions, or forums that address the crisis in Ukraine. - Example Organizations: - **Peace Action**: They often have local chapters engaged in activism and advocacy. - **United For Peace and Justice**: Look for local chapters or events in your area.

6. **Financial Support** - Consider donating to organizations that provide humanitarian aid to Ukraine. Examples include: - **International Red Cross**: They provide critical support in conflict areas. - **Doctors Without Borders**: Offers medical assistance in crisis zones.

7. **Engage on Social Media** - Use your platforms to raise awareness about the importance of diplomatic solutions and the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine. Share articles, infographics, and calls to action.

8. **Promote Dialogue and Understanding** - Initiate conversations in your community about the conflict, focusing on the importance of peaceful resolution and understanding the perspectives of those affected by the war.

9. **Advocate for Continued Engagement** - Encourage broader public and political discourse on maintaining peace and international cooperation. This can include advocating for increased dialogue between NATO and Russia to reduce tensions.

### Conclusion Every action, no matter how small, can contribute to a larger movement for peace and justice. By engaging with our communities, supporting humanitarian efforts, and advocating for thoughtful policy responses, we can help shape a more peaceful and equitable world.


Sign Our Petition



10 Related Article(s):

Muslim & NATO Nations BOIL Over Netanyahu Minister's Israel Dare: 'If You Recognise Palestine...'

Putin-Trump summit: What each side wants | Fox 11 Tri Cities Fox 41 Yakima

No Zelensky, no Brussels, no problem: Here's how Putin and Trump's Alaska power move will play out, by Dmitry Suslov - Russia News Now

Trump and Putin to spar Ukraine peace and arms control at Alaska summit By Reuters

Trump and Putin to meet over Ukraine peace at Alaska summit

What's at stake at the Trump-Putin Ukraine peace summit?

Trump and Putin to spar Ukraine peace and arms control at Alaska summit

Putin heads to Alaska in heavily armoured limo

The Geopolitical Chessboard: Ceasefire Talks and Territorial Tensions | Law-Order

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin to spar over Ukraine peace and arms control at Alaska summit


Updated very often
All Opinions and Actions are (C)opyright 2025 - TruthAndResistance.com