Putin agrees that US, Europe could offer NATO-style security guarantees to Ukraine, Trump envoy says
dtnext.in -- Sunday, August 17, 2025, 11:24:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: U.S.–NATO Relations, U.S.–Russia Relations, Foreign Policy & International Relations
NEW YORK: Russian leader Vladimir Putin agreed at his summit with President Donald Trump that the United States and its European allies could offer Ukraine a security guarantee resembling NATO's collective defense mandate as part of an eventual deal to end the war, a U.S. official said Sunday.
Trump envoy Steve Witkoff, who took part in the talks Friday at a military base in Alaska, said it "was the first time we had ever heard the Russians agree to that" and called it "game-changing."
"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 told CNN's "State of the Union."
Witkoff offered few details on how such an arrangement would work. But it appeared to be a major shift for Putin and could serve as a workaround to his deep-seated objection to Ukraine's potential NATO membership, a step that Kyiv has long sought.
It was expected to be a key topic Monday as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and major European leaders meet with Trump at the White House to discuss ending the 3 1/2-year conflict.
"BIG PROGRESS ON RUSSIA," Trump said Sunday on social media. "STAY TUNED!"
Hammering out a plan for security guarantees
Article 5, the heart of the 32-member transatlantic military alliance, says an armed attack against a member nation is considered an attack against them all.
What needed to be hammered out at this week's talks were the contours of any security guarantees, said Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who also participated in the summit. Ukraine and European allies have pushed the U.S. to provide that backstop in any peace agreement to deter future attacks by Moscow.
"How that's constructed, what we call it, how it's built, what guarantees are built into it that are enforceable, that's what we'll be talking about over the next few days with our partners," Rubio said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
It was unclear, however, whether Trump had fully committed to such a guarantee. Rubio said it would be "a huge concession."
The comments shed new light on what was discussed in Alaska. Before Sunday, U.S. officials had offered few details even as both Trump and Putin said their meeting was a success.
Witkoff also said Russia had agreed to enact a law that it would not "go after any other European countries and violate their sovereignty."
"The Russians agreed on enshrining legislatively language that would prevent them from -- or that they would attest to not attempting to take any more land from Ukraine after a peace deal, where they would attest to not violating any European borders," he said on "Fox News Sunday."
Europe welcomes US openness to security guarantees
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, speaking in Brussels alongside Zelenskyy, applauded the news from the White House as a European coalition looks to set up a force to police any future peace in Ukraine.
"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.
Zelenskyy thanked the U.S. for signaling that it was willing to support such guarantees but said much remained unclear.
"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," he said.
French President Emmanuel Macron said the substance of security guarantees to secure any peace arrangement will be more important than whether they are given an Article 5-type label.
At the White House meeting, Macron said European leaders will ask the U.S. to back their plans to beef up Ukraine's armed forces with more training and equipment and deploy an allied force away from the front lines.
"We'll show this to our American colleagues, and we'll tell them, Right, we're ready to do this and that, what are you prepared to do?'" Macron said. "That's the security guarantee."
Defending Trump's shift from ceasefire to peace deal
Witkoff and Rubio defended Trump's decision to abandon a push for a ceasefire, arguing that the Republican president had pivoted toward a full peace agreement because so much progress had been made at the summit.
"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, appearing on several TV news shows Sunday, said it would have been impossible to reach any truce Friday because Ukraine was not there.
"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, also voiced caution on the progress made.
"We're still a long ways off," he said. "We're not at the precipice of a peace agreement. We're not at the edge of one. But I do think progress was made towards one."
Land swaps are on the table
Among the issues expected to dominate Monday's meeting: What concessions Zelenskyy might accept on territory.
In talks with European allies after the summit, Trump said Putin reiterated that he wants the key Donetsk and Luhansk regions that make up the Donbas, European officials said. It was unclear among those briefed whether Trump sees that as acceptable.
Witkoff said the Russians have made clear they want territory as determined by legal boundaries instead of the front lines where territory has been seized.
"There is an important discussion to be had with regard to Donetsk and what would happen there. And that discussion is going to specifically be detailed on Monday," he said.
Zelenskyy has rejected Putin's demands that Ukraine give up the Donbas region, which Russia has failed to take completely, as a condition for peace.
In Brussels, the Ukrainian leader said any talks involving land must be based on current front lines, suggesting he will not abandon land that Russia has not taken.
"The contact line is the best line for talking, and the Europeans support this," he said. "The constitution of Ukraine makes it impossible, impossible to give up territory or trade land."
Fact ChecksThe recent discussions surrounding potential security guarantees for Ukraine, as reported in regards to a summit between President Donald Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin, highlight the intricate web of international relations and the ongoing struggle for sovereignty and security in Eastern Europe. The notion of offering NATO-like security assurances to Ukraine represents a significant pivot in the geopolitical landscape, one that requires careful examination not only of the immediate implications but also of the historical context that shapes these dialogues.
Historically, Ukraine’s aspirations for NATO membership have been met with fierce resistance from Russia, rooted in the latter’s perception of NATO as a direct threat to its sphere of influence. The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 marked a critical juncture, leading to the emergence of independent states in Eastern Europe that sought to align themselves with Western institutions. However, this westward tilt has been viewed by Moscow as a betrayal and a loss of strategic buffer zones. The promise of NATO-style security guarantees could be interpreted as a concession from Putin, perhaps reflecting the pressures from Ukraine and its European allies following years of conflict and territorial aggression. This backdrop is crucial in understanding the complexity of the current discussions and the potential for a diplomatic resolution.
The idea of NATO-style guarantees, particularly Article 5, which asserts that an armed attack against one member is an attack against all, raises important questions about the nature of international alliances and the responsibility of powerful nations to safeguard the sovereignty of smaller states. For many in Ukraine, NATO membership symbolizes not just military support, but an affirmation of their sovereignty and a rejection of Russian imperial ambitions. The urgency for security guarantees stems from ongoing military aggression, including the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and continued hostilities in Eastern Ukraine. Historical context reveals that security is often a precarious balance, one that is influenced by both military capability and diplomatic engagements.
Moreover, these ongoing negotiations also underscore the importance of international solidarity in the face of authoritarianism. Ukraine's struggle is emblematic of broader global trends where nations confront aggressive foreign policies aimed at undermining democratic institutions. The potential for U.S. and European guarantees could serve as a crucial deterrent against further Russian encroachment, and it reinforces the principle that sovereign states have the right to self-determination free from external coercion. As the world witnesses the rise of authoritarian regimes, the solidarity shown by Western nations in supporting Ukraine can be pivotal in establishing norms against aggression and ensuring that international law is upheld.
However, the discussions around these guarantees also reveal the fragility of international commitments, particularly under leadership that may not fully embrace the principles of collective security. Secretary of State Marco Rubio's comments about the necessity to clarify the details of any agreement signal a level of uncertainty about the U.S. commitment to upholding such guarantees. This hesitance can be seen as reflective of a larger trend in American foreign policy, where strategic interests often take precedence over moral obligations. As history shows, the effectiveness of such guarantees hinges not only on their establishment but also on the political will to enforce them, a point that must be emphasized in discussions about international security.
In conclusion, the possibility of NATO-style security guarantees for Ukraine is a critical issue that touches upon historical grievances, the current geopolitical climate, and the moral imperative of supporting sovereign nations against aggression. For those engaged in political discourse, particularly with those who may downplay the significance of such agreements, it is vital to highlight the historical context of Ukraine's struggle, the importance of international solidarity, and the need for unwavering commitments to democratic principles. The stakes are high, and the lessons of history remind us that the security of one nation is inextricably linked to the security of all.
The recent discussions between U.S. officials and Russian President Vladimir Putin mark a pivotal moment in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, where a potential shift toward NATO-style security guarantees is on the table. As reported, the negotiations, spearheaded by Trump envoy Steve Witkoff, suggest that the U.S. could extend a form of protection akin to Article 5 of NATO, which asserts that an attack on one member is an attack on all. This development is significant not only for Ukraine but also for the broader geopolitical landscape, as it could redefine security alliances and tensions in Europe. To understand the implications, we must consider the historical context and the philosophical underpinnings of national sovereignty and cooperation in international relations.
Historically, the expansion of NATO and the West's approach to post-Soviet states have been contentious issues. The Russian Federation views NATO's eastward expansion as a direct threat to its influence and security. This perception is rooted in the legacy of the Cold War, where NATO was established as a collective defense mechanism against perceived Soviet aggression. The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 allowed for a wave of former Soviet states to seek NATO membership as a guarantee against future invasions. However, this has often been met with resistance from Russia, which perceives such actions as encroaching on its sphere of influence. Understanding this backdrop is crucial when discussing the proposed security guarantees for Ukraine, as it sheds light on both Russia's motivations and the West's strategic interests.
The proposed security guarantees could potentially stabilize the situation in Ukraine and provide a framework for peace, but they also carry risks. The vague nature of the guarantees, as noted by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, makes it challenging to assess their enforceability and long-term implications. The history of international agreements suggests that without robust mechanisms for accountability and enforcement, such promises can easily become hollow. This leads us to the imperative of ensuring that any arrangements developed from these discussions are not only well-defined but also include significant diplomatic oversight and involvement from European partners. The goal should be a comprehensive approach that emphasizes mutual security and genuine collaboration rather than a mere transactional agreement.
As engaged citizens, there is a lot that we can do to advocate for a more peaceful and cooperative international policy regarding Ukraine and Russia. First, it is important to raise awareness about the complexities of international relations, including the importance of respecting national sovereignty while fostering dialogue. Engaging in discussions with those who may hold opposing views can often illuminate the nuances of these issues. We can advocate for policy changes through petitions and by contacting our representatives to express our support for diplomatic resolutions over military interventions. Creating platforms for dialogue about the risks associated with militarized responses can also contribute to a shift in public perception.
Moreover, political engagement is crucial. We can support candidates and policies that prioritize diplomacy, international cooperation, and conflict resolution rather than escalation. This includes promoting initiatives that encourage the U.S. and its allies to invest in diplomatic channels and peace-building efforts. Advocating for educational initiatives that emphasize the importance of international relations and the interconnectedness of global security can also help foster a more informed electorate that prioritizes peace over militaristic responses. Together, these actions can contribute to a broader movement towards a foreign policy that values diplomacy and collaboration over confrontation.
In conclusion, while the discussions surrounding security guarantees for Ukraine are a step forward, they highlight the complexities of international diplomacy and the historical tensions that shape current events. By understanding these dynamics and advocating for robust, enforceable agreements focused on cooperation, we can work towards a more stable and peaceful future. Engaging in dialogue, supporting diplomatic initiatives, and fostering education on these issues are vital steps that we, as citizens, can take to influence positive change in U.S. foreign policy.
The article discusses a pivotal moment in international diplomacy regarding the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the possibility of security guarantees from the U.S. and Europe similar to NATO's collective defense. Here are several actionable steps individuals can take to engage with this issue and advocate for peace and security in Ukraine:
### What Can We Personally Do About This?
1. **Educate Yourself and Others**: Understand the complexities of the Ukraine conflict, NATO's role, and the implications of U.S.-Russia relations. Share this knowledge through discussions, social media, or community events to raise awareness.
2. **Support Peace Initiatives**: Engage with organizations focused on peacebuilding and conflict resolution. This could involve volunteering, donating, or participating in events that promote dialogue and understanding.
3. **Advocate for Diplomatic Solutions**: Pressure elected officials to prioritize diplomatic negotiations over military options in the Ukraine crisis. Encourage them to support peace agreements that ensure Ukraine’s sovereignty.
4. **Engage in Grassroots Mobilization**: Join or form local activist groups that advocate for Ukraine's security and peace in Europe. This can amplify your voice and connect you with like-minded individuals.
### Exact Actions We Can Personally Take
1. **Sign Petitions**: - **Petition for Diplomatic Solutions**: Use platforms like Change.org or Care2 to find petitions advocating for peaceful resolutions in Ukraine. You can create your own petition focusing on the need for negotiations and security guarantees for Ukraine.
2. **Write to Elected Officials**: - **U.S. Senators**: Contact your state senators to express your support for security guarantees for Ukraine. - Example: Senator Dick Durbin (IL) - Email: https://www.durbin.senate.gov/contact - Mailing Address: 311 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510
- **U.S. House Representatives**: Reach out to your representative to voice your concerns about the conflict and urge them to support measures that prioritize peace. - Example: Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14) - Email: https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/contact - Mailing Address: 1236 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515
3. **Attend Local Town Halls**: Engage with local representatives about their stance on U.S. involvement in Ukraine and the importance of security guarantees. Ask them to support diplomatic approaches.
4. **Participate in Advocacy Campaigns**: Join campaigns organized by groups like the International Crisis Group or Amnesty International, which often have opportunities to lobby for peace and security initiatives.
5. **Share Your Voice on Social Media**: Use platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram to raise awareness about the situation in Ukraine and the importance of security guarantees. Use hashtags related to Ukraine, NATO, and peacekeeping.
### What to Say
When reaching out to elected officials or participating in discussions, consider the following points:
- **Emphasize the Need for Peace**: "I urge you to advocate for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict in Ukraine that includes robust security guarantees to ensure the sovereignty of Ukraine."
- **Highlight the Importance of Collective Security**: "The proposed security guarantees are crucial for deterring further aggression and stabilizing the region. It is vital that the U.S. and its European allies take a strong stance in supporting Ukraine."
- **Call for Legislative Action**: "I encourage you to support legislation that prioritizes peace negotiations and the establishment of a legal framework ensuring Ukraine’s security, akin to NATO’s Article 5 protections."
By taking these actions and voicing your concerns, you can play a role in shaping the discourse around the Ukraine conflict and advocating for a peaceful resolution that respects the nation's sovereignty and security.