In his historical meetings with Ukrainian President Volodimir Zelenski and seven European leaders in the White House last Monday (18.8.25), the US President Donald Trump committed to ‘security guarantees’ at Ukrainein order for Kiev to consent to a peacekeeping agreement with Russia to end the war.
Donald Trump was optimistic about ending the war, Zelenski said he agrees to meet Vladimir Putin, provided that security guarantees were given to Ukraine while European leaders returned to Old Epirus.
As Sky News points out in his analysis, the details of the meeting in the White House were unclear and were clearly clarified during the week (some rumors of US aircraft were heard in the European power that will be sent to Ukraine), but, regardless of the US. For months on Ukraine – “it’s a problem for Europe” and all the relevant.
However, it has always been obvious that, beyond this clear achievement for Europeans, Russia would have a problem with it. The language of Trump’s envoy last weekend – stronger that Putin had agreed to provide Europe guarantees of “type 5” in Ukraine, essentially providing her with a NATO collective security – was enigmatic.
Russia’s attitude offensive
Throughout this week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov undermined the whole project, noting that Russia would never accept any peace plan that would include the presence of European or NATO troops in Ukraine.
“The presence of foreign troops in Ukraine is completely unacceptable to Russia,” Lavrov said, repeating similar statements that have been made for years. Remember that NATO’s “eastern expansion” was the excuse for Russia’s “special military operation” – the invasion of Ukraine – from the outset. All this makes Trump look rather weak.
It is a challenge to Trump, though it is interesting that the Russian language has been carefully shaped so as not to cause Trump, but to ridicule European leaders.
The bilateral meeting (between Putin and Zelenski) that Trump welcomed Monday as agreed and imminent – “within two weeks” – seems clearly doubtful. Maybe that’s why he agreed with Putin’s proposal to first take a bilateral meeting, without Trump’s participation. It is easier for the US president to blame someone else if he is not his own meeting and does not take place.
European sources attending the meeting commented that the meeting was a great success. And in relation to Lavrov’s comments, a source said: “It is not in the hand of Lavrov to decide on security guarantees. It is not at the hand of the threatening to decide how to prevent the threat! ” The argument is that it is not realistic for Russia to say from which countries it can and from which Ukraine can not accommodate troops.
Would Trump threaten with the use of violence?
According to Sky News, the problem is that if Europe and the White House want Russia to sign some kind of peace agreement, then the agreement of all sides on security arrangements will be required. The other way to submit Russia would be with an overwhelming threat of violence. Something from Trump, such as: “Vladimir, look at what I did in Iran …”. But, of course, Iran is not a nuclear power.
As pointed out in the analysis, a basic concept of “security guarantee” is an unmistakable obligation to defend Ukraine in the future. Future guarantees would require conditions, not just an indefinite promise. Trump’s America does not seem to really sign anything that obliges her to do something. A multilevel security guarantee built over time is an option, but on the Kremlin side, it will probably end up being a repetition of history and give them another “excuse” to react.