'First time we heard' Putin agree on NATO-style protection for Ukraine: Trump envoy
indianexpress.com -- Sunday, August 17, 2025, 10:59:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: U.S.–Russia Relations, U.S.–NATO Relations, Foreign Policy & International Relations
Steve Witkoff, who attended Saturday's Alaska talks between Trump and Putin, called the move 'game-changing'.
Washington and its European allies could offer Ukraine a NATO-style security guarantee as part of a potential peace deal, a US official said Sunday. Trump envoy Steve Witkoff, who attended Saturday's Alaska talks, told CNN that it was "the first time we had ever heard the Russians agree to that" and called the move "game-changing."
He said Moscow signalled openness to US-led "Article 5-like protection" for Ukraine, though details on how it would work remain unclear.
Article 5 is the core of NATO's defence pact, which treats an attack on one member as an attack on all. Putin has long opposed Ukraine's bid to join NATO.
Story continues below this ad
The possible shift is a significant step towards discussions at the White House happening today as per IST, where Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will join Trump and European leaders.
Trump hailed "BIG PROGRESS ON RUSSIA" in a post on Truth Social, but later suggested Kyiv would need to make compromises. "President Zelenskyy of Ukraine can end the war with Russia almost immediately, if he wants to... NO GOING INTO NATO BY UKRAINE. Some things never change!!!" he wrote.
Negotiating the guarantees
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who also attended the Alaska summit, said the shape of any guarantee was still under discussion. "How that's constructed, what we call it, how it's built... that's what we'll be talking about over the next few days with our partners," he told NBC.
He stressed that while progress was made, "we're still a long ways off" from a peace agreement.
Story continues below this ad
Witkoff added that Russia had also agreed in principle to a law pledging not to seize more European territory or violate neighbours' sovereignty.
Also Read: | Zelenskyy says Russia 'complicating' peace efforts as Trump pushes Ukraine towards deal with Moscow
European reaction
European leaders cautiously welcomed the development.
* European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said, "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."
* Zelenskyy, speaking alongside her, thanked the US for the signal but stressed the need for clarity. "There are no details how it will work... and this is our main task: We need security to work in practice like Article 5 of NATO," he said.
* French President Emmanuel Macron noted that substance would matter more than labels. He said European allies will ask Washington to support their own plans to bolster Ukraine's forces and maintain a deterrent presence away from the front lines.
Ceasefire vs peace deal
Trump's team defended his decision not to push for an immediate ceasefire. Witkoff said so much ground was covered in Alaska that the administration is now aiming for a broader peace agreement.
Rubio told ABC News that no truce could have been reached on Saturday because Ukraine was not present. He added that while consequences await if no deal emerges, the priority is avoiding escalation.
Story continues below this ad
The thorniest question remains territorial concessions. According to European officials, Putin reiterated his demand for Ukraine to cede the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in the Donbas. Witkoff said Moscow prefers boundaries based on legal demarcations rather than shifting front lines. He suggested the issue would feature prominently in Monday's talks.
Zelenskyy, however, has rejected giving up territory. In Brussels, he said the "contact line is the best line for talking" and pointed to Ukraine's constitution, which he said makes it "impossible to give up territory or trade land."
Sign Our PetitionThe recent discussions surrounding possible NATO-style security guarantees for Ukraine, as revealed by Trump envoy Steve Witkoff, mark a noteworthy moment in a protracted geopolitical conflict that has roots in historical tensions and a complex interplay of international relations. The suggestion that Russia may be open to a framework akin to NATO’s Article 5 is indeed a significant pivot, especially given President Putin’s historical reservations regarding Ukraine’s alignment with Western alliances. However, while this development may seem promising on the surface, it is crucial to examine the broader context of these discussions, the implications for Ukraine, and the lasting legacies of imperialism that continue to shape the region.
The concept of NATO-style protection is steeped in a legacy of military alliances that were originally formed in the aftermath of World War II to counter the Soviet Union. Article 5, which states that an attack on one member is an attack on all, was primarily designed to deter Soviet aggression in Europe. As we consider the current geopolitical landscape, it is imperative to recognize that this framework is not merely a military assurance; it is intertwined with the historical narratives of Western imperialism and the expansion of NATO. The eastward expansion of NATO has been perceived by Russia as a direct threat to its sphere of influence, exacerbating tensions and leading to conflicts that have had dire consequences for regional stability and international relations.
Moreover, the ongoing war in Ukraine is emblematic of larger social struggles that go beyond just territorial disputes. The conflict has laid bare the vulnerabilities of a nation striving for sovereignty and self-determination in the face of external aggression. The push for NATO-style guarantees, while framed as a security measure, raises questions about the nature of foreign intervention and the responsibilities of Western nations. The idea that security can be assured through military alliances often overlooks the importance of addressing the root causes of conflict, including economic inequality, corruption, and historical grievances. In an era where global solidarity is increasingly critical for addressing social injustices, the framing of Ukraine’s security needs must also consider the voices of its citizens and their aspirations for a peaceful future.
The cautious optimism expressed by European leaders, including President Macron and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, underscores the complexities of navigating this geopolitical quagmire. While the acknowledgment of potential security guarantees is a step forward, it is essential to emphasize that the substance of such agreements must prioritize the well-being of Ukrainian people over strategic military interests. The historical tendency of Western powers to engage in "coalitions of the willing" without fully accounting for the implications on local populations has often resulted in prolonged instability. The international community must learn from past mistakes and ensure that any agreements reflect a commitment to justice, security, and the sovereignty of nations, rather than merely serving geopolitical agendas.
Finally, as we reflect on these developments, it is vital to engage in critical dialogues that challenge the prevailing narratives surrounding military intervention and alliances. The notion that compromises are necessary for peace, as suggested by Trump, must be approached with caution. It is imperative to advocate for a peace framework that is inclusive and respects Ukraine’s right to self-determination. In this context, we must connect the current situation with historical struggles against imperialism and colonialism, recognizing that true security arises not from military pacts, but from addressing the social, economic, and political inequalities that fuel conflict. Engaging in these discussions will not only provide a deeper understanding of the complexities at play but will also serve as a powerful tool for advocating for a more just and equitable resolution to the crisis in Ukraine.
The recent dialogue between U.S. officials, including former President Donald Trump, and Russian President Vladimir Putin regarding potential NATO-style protections for Ukraine signifies a pivotal moment in international relations. This discussion not only underscores the complexity of the geopolitical landscape but also highlights the urgent need for a coherent and principled approach to foreign policy that prioritizes peace and stability over a mere transactional mindset. The implications of this dialogue stretch far beyond the immediate concerns surrounding Ukraine; they speak to larger historical patterns of U.S. engagement with Russia and the ongoing struggle for democracy in Eastern Europe.
Historically, the relationship between the United States and Russia has been fraught with tension and competition, especially following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe has been a point of contention, with Russia perceiving it as a direct threat to its sphere of influence. The potential for a NATO-style security guarantee for Ukraine, while seemingly a step toward easing tensions, must be approached with caution. The idea of extending Article 5 protections—where an attack on one member is considered an attack on all—could indeed alter the landscape of security in Europe, but it also risks further entrenching divisions and militarization that could lead to escalation rather than resolution.
As engaged citizens, it is crucial for us to advocate for a diplomatic approach that emphasizes de-escalation and mutual respect between nations. The dialogue around security guarantees should not merely be about military posturing but about establishing lasting frameworks for peace. We must pressure our elected representatives to prioritize diplomatic solutions that focus on conflict resolution through dialogue, economic cooperation, and cultural exchange rather than military alliances that could provoke further conflicts. Engaging in grassroots activism, writing to representatives, and supporting organizations that promote peace and diplomacy can amplify our voices in this critical debate.
Moreover, the role of the European Union in this conversation cannot be overstated. EU leaders have signaled their readiness to contribute to security guarantees for Ukraine, but this requires a unified and robust strategy that is free from the whims of individual leaders. We should advocate for collaborative efforts between the U.S. and Europe that prioritize the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine while also respecting Russia's legitimate security concerns. This dual approach could help foster an environment conducive to a sustainable peace agreement, rather than merely serving one party's interests over the other.
In the arena of public discourse, it is important to challenge narratives that glorify military solutions or frame conflicts in binary terms. Instead, we should promote discussions that recognize the complexities of international relations and the need for nuanced understanding and empathy. Engaging right-leaning individuals in conversations about the long-term benefits of diplomacy versus the short-term allure of military alliances can create openings for broader understanding and consensus-building. By emphasizing shared human values—such as security, prosperity, and dignity—we can build bridges that transcend ideological divides.
In summary, the developments surrounding the potential NATO-style protections for Ukraine reveal both opportunities and challenges. As Americans, we must advocate for a foreign policy that values diplomacy and peaceful resolutions over militaristic approaches. By calling for collective action among U.S. and European leaders, emphasizing the importance of understanding diverse perspectives, and engaging in informed public discourse, we can contribute to a more peaceful and just world. The path forward requires a commitment to proactive engagement rather than reactive posturing, ensuring that the lessons of history inform our actions today.
In light of the recent developments surrounding the potential for NATO-style security guarantees for Ukraine, as discussed in the article, there are several actions individuals can take to advocate for peace, support Ukraine, and hold leaders accountable. Here’s a detailed list of ideas and concrete steps you can personally take:
### What Can We Personally Do About This?
1. **Stay Informed:** - Keep up-to-date with credible news sources covering the situation in Ukraine and international relations. - Follow organizations that focus on human rights, peace, and conflict resolution.
2. **Engage in Advocacy:** - Raise awareness about the implications of military alliances and the importance of peace negotiations. - Share information on social media platforms to educate others about the situation in Ukraine.
3. **Support Humanitarian Aid:** - Contribute to organizations providing humanitarian assistance to those affected by the conflict. - Organize or participate in local fundraising events for Ukrainian relief efforts.
4. **Contact Elected Officials:** - Write letters or emails to your representatives urging them to support peace initiatives and humanitarian efforts rather than military escalation.
5. **Join or Form Community Groups:** - Collaborate with local organizations focused on peace advocacy, international relations, or humanitarian aid. - Attend town hall meetings or public forums to voice your concerns and propose solutions.
### Exact Actions You Can Take
1. **Petition for Peace:** - **Action:** Start or join a petition calling for a peaceful resolution to the Ukraine conflict. - **Example:** Use platforms like Change.org to create or sign petitions that emphasize the need for diplomacy over military intervention.
2. **Contact Elected Officials:** - **Who to Write To:** - Your local congressional representatives. Find your representatives here: [House of Representatives](https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative) - Senators representing your state. Locate them here: [Senate.gov](https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm) - **Example Contacts:** - Rep. [Name] (D) [Your State] - Email: [Email Address] - Mailing Address: [USPS Address] - Sen. [Name] (D) [Your State] - Email: [Email Address] - Mailing Address: [USPS Address] - **What to Say:** - Express your concern over the ongoing conflict and urge them to prioritize diplomatic solutions and humanitarian aid over military involvement.
3. **Support Humanitarian Organizations:** - **Examples of Organizations:** - International Rescue Committee (IRC): [www.rescue.org](https://www.rescue.org) - Doctors Without Borders: [www.doctorswithoutborders.org](https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org) - **Action:** Donate or volunteer your time to assist these organizations in their efforts to provide aid to those affected by the war.
4. **Engage in Local Events:** - **Action:** Attend or organize local events such as forums, discussions, or rallies focused on peace advocacy and support for Ukraine. - **Example:** Check local community boards or social media for events related to the Ukraine conflict.
5. **Write Op-Eds or Letters to the Editor:** - **Action:** Write to local newspapers expressing your views on the need for diplomatic solutions and peace efforts in Ukraine. - **What to Include:** Discuss the importance of international cooperation and humanitarian support.
6. **Educate Others:** - **Action:** Host informational sessions or discussions in your community to raise awareness about the situation in Ukraine and the importance of peace. - **Example Topics:** The history of NATO, the implications of military alliances, and the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine.
By taking these actions, you can contribute to a more informed and engaged public discourse regarding the Ukraine conflict and advocate for a future rooted in peace and cooperation.