Ukraine's only real guarantee is its own military
Putin demands Ukrainian territorial concessions in Donbás and rejects initial ceasefire, while Trump has accepted skipping preliminary negotiations for direct final agreement talks. Proposed security guarantees range from NATO Article 5-style protection (which Trump explicitly rejected) to weaker Budapest Memorandum-style promises that historically failed to prevent Russian aggression.
- Trump met Putin in Alaska on August 15, 2025; Zelensky at the White House on August 18
- Putin demands Ukrainian territorial concessions in Donbás and rejects initial ceasefire
- Trump explicitly ruled out Ukrainian NATO membership on August 19
- 1994 Budapest Memorandum security guarantees failed to prevent Russian invasion in 2014 and 2022
- European coalition led by Britain and France planning military deployment inside Ukraine
Trump claims a Ukraine peace deal is within reach, but fundamental disagreements persist over security guarantees, territorial concessions, and Russia's veto power over any protective measures.
Donald Trump arrived at the White House on August 18th fresh from meetings with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, declaring that peace in Ukraine was nearly within reach—though not quite, and far more complicated than he had anticipated. "I thought this would be one of the easiest," he said. "It's very complex." That complexity, it turns out, runs deeper than any of the public statements suggest.
The obstacles are substantial and interlocking. Vladimir Putin, whom Trump met in Alaska five days earlier, wants Ukraine to surrender the unoccupied territories in the eastern Donbás region—a demand Trump appears willing to accept. The Russian president has also rejected Trump's proposal for a three-way summit between Washington, Moscow, and Kyiv, offering instead the unlikely suggestion that Zelensky travel to Moscow. Most significantly, Putin has rejected Trump's initial ceasefire proposal in favor of moving directly to a final agreement, a sequence that European leaders oppose. The negotiating table, in other words, is already fractured before the real work begins.
But the deepest problem is one that remains almost entirely unresolved: how to guarantee Ukraine's security after any peace deal is signed. The fear is straightforward and historically grounded. If Russia lifts sanctions and rebuilds its military under the cover of peace, it could emerge stronger and attack again, completing what it started in 2022. Trump claimed on August 18th that Russia had agreed to accept security guarantees, with his envoy Steve Witkoff suggesting something resembling NATO's Article 5—the mutual defense clause that treats an attack on one member as an attack on all. But what would that actually mean in practice? Trump explicitly ruled out Ukrainian NATO membership the next day, calling the application "very insulting" to Russia. He is unlikely to commit to war with Russia to protect Ukraine, just as his predecessors Obama and Biden were not.
The details of what Putin actually said in Alaska remain murky, and that matters enormously. In 2022, during earlier peace talks, Russia did agree that other countries could offer security guarantees as part of a settlement. But the Kremlin later inserted a veto clause that would have allowed it to block any activation of those guarantees. On August 20th, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov declared that any new agreement should be based on those earlier proposals, with China included among the guarantors. The pattern is clear: Russia wants the right to say no.
Other models exist, though none are reassuring. The 1994 Budapest Memorandum, in which the United States, Britain, and Russia promised to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity and weakly agreed to "consult" if violated, proved worthless. A middle ground might resemble the 1975 U.S.-Israel agreement, where America promised corrective measures if Egypt broke a ceasefire—measures that could include reimposing sanctions or revoking Ukrainian neutrality. Meanwhile, Britain and France are leading a "coalition of the willing" that could deploy troops inside Ukraine and aircraft in its skies, with planning already underway and countries considering where to station forces. Trump has suggested he would support this with logistics and intelligence, though his language has been vague. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is leading a working group to examine the possibilities. Russia has made clear it opposes the entire idea.
The central contradiction in Trump's vision is stark: Russia, the aggressor state, would have to consent to any security guarantees offered to Ukraine, a country whose very existence Russia denies. The unknown variable is Putin himself—whether he has genuinely concluded it is time to make strategic decisions and stop, or whether the impossible task of reconciling serious security guarantees with Russian veto power will become a convenient obstacle. Lavrov's recent comments suggest the latter.
What remains equally unclear is what a European force would actually do. It could train and develop Ukraine's own armed forces. It could offer reassurance through mere presence, as foreign troops did before they fled in 2022. But if attacked, or if Russia broke the peace and invaded again, how would the coalition respond? A formal commitment to fight Russia would be Article 5 by another name. A vague mandate with unclear rules of engagement might tempt Russia to test European resolve. Emmanuel Macron, speaking at the White House, acknowledged the hard truth: Ukraine's only real guarantee is its own military. That makes it crucial that any peace agreement not constrain the size and capability of Ukrainian forces, as Russia has demanded. Zelensky cannot sign away his country's ability to defend itself. Putin continues seeking to reduce Ukraine to a weakened vassal state, isolated from its allies. Trump may be waiting longer than he expected for his Nobel Prize.
Citações Notáveis
I thought this would be one of the easiest. It's very complex.— Donald Trump, August 18, 2025
The guarantee that really matters is Ukraine's own armed forces, and any peace deal must not limit their size or capability.— Emmanuel Macron, paraphrased from White House remarks
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does Trump keep saying a deal is close when the basic disagreements seem so fundamental?
Because he's measuring closeness differently than the parties involved. To him, proximity means the parties are talking and willing to negotiate. To Zelensky and the Europeans, closeness requires actual agreement on what happens after the guns fall silent—and that's where everything breaks down.
What's the real problem with security guarantees? Why can't they just promise to help Ukraine if Russia attacks again?
Because any promise only works if Russia believes it will be enforced. Russia has learned it can call bluffs. The Budapest Memorandum was a promise, and it meant nothing when Russia invaded in 2014 and 2022. So now everyone's asking: what's different this time? And honestly, no one has a convincing answer.
Why does Putin get to veto Ukraine's security guarantees? That seems backwards.
It does, but that's the leverage he holds. He's the one with the army. He can say: accept my terms or I keep fighting. And if Trump is willing to pressure Zelensky to accept a deal, Putin knows he can extract concessions. The veto isn't fair—it's just power.
Could European troops actually deter Russia from attacking again?
Maybe, but only if Russia believes they'll fight. And that's the trap. If the rules of engagement are vague, Russia tests them. If they're clear and binding, you've essentially created NATO by another name, which Trump explicitly rejected. Europe is trying to split the difference, and that's exactly where things fall apart.
So what does Zelensky actually want?
He wants his country to survive intact and armed. He knows external guarantees are fragile. He's seen them fail. So his real security is the ability to defend himself. That's why he's insisting any deal can't limit Ukraine's military capacity. It's the only guarantee he trusts.