Through an extended weekend full of summitry, President Donald Trump revived the role of diplomacy in addressing the European conflict, making the first allied contact with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin since early in the Ukraine war. Trump rejected efforts by Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky and seven European leaders to escalate the endless proxy war against Russia. Despite his narcissistic peculiarities, the president made more progress toward peace in four days than President Joe Biden did in three years, though there is still great skepticism that the war will soon end.
Although determined to end the fighting, Trump surprisingly accepted allied demands that Washington guarantee Ukrainian security. He seemed resolute on Sunday when he emphatically declared on Truth Social: “NO GOING INTO NATO BY UKRAINE.” However, Trump had already given away the game. While traveling on Air Force One to Alaska, reported the Washington Post, Trump said publicly, for the first time, that he was “open to the ‘possibility’ of security guarantees for Ukraine, ‘along with other Europe and other countries’.” He later talked about European security guarantees in “coordination with” America. Before welcoming Zelensky and his European leaders, Trump responded to a question about providing U.S. troops: “We’ll let you know that maybe later today,” adding that he’d discuss such matters with the incoming White House guests.
Trump’s special envoy, Steven Witkoff, explained “that the U.S. and other European nations could effectively offer Article 5–like language to cover a security guarantee.” He exulted: “We were able to bypass [Moscow’s NATO red line]. We got an agreement that the U.S. could offer Article 5–type protection, which is the first time we have ever heard the Russians agree to that.” The president’s unusual willingness to accept Europe’s priorities pleased his guests. Reported POLITICO: “Trump’s openness to such guarantees—a key demand for both Ukraine and Europe—help explain the cautious optimism European officials have expressed.”
Although administration officials said that Moscow agreed to a Western security guarantee, it warned that the deployment of troops from NATO countries would risk “an uncontrolled escalation of the conflict with unpredictable consequences.” The Russian Foreign Ministry issued a formal statement: “We reaffirm our repeatedly stated position of categorical rejection of any scenarios involving the presence of a military contingent from NATO countries in Ukraine.” Trump wished away Russia’s objection: “I don’t think it’s going to be a problem, to be honest with you. I think Putin is tired of it. I think they’re all tired of it. But you never know. We’re going to find out about President Putin in the next couple of weeks.” Some Russia-friendly observers suspect that a Trump–Putin agreement to put forward easy conditions as a ploy to pacify Washington, or “some secret backdoor handshake between the U.S. and Russia,” with the expectation that no guarantee would ever take effect.
Though Trump on Tuesday ruled out putting U.S. boots on the ground, a security commitment likely means an American military component. Editorialized the Wall Street Journal: “For guarantees to have real deterrent effect, they would have to include foreign troops in Ukraine. Kiev would need the ability to build up its military and arms industry. The U.S. would have to provide intelligence and air power to back up the ground forces.” Washington’s War Party can be expected to forever lobby for more. Even the president talked up the effort: “We will give them very good protection, very good security. That’s part of it.”
The BBC reported on remarks by Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary: “Leavitt says support from the air is ‘an option and a possibility’ as part of security guarantees. ‘I can tell you he’s definitively ruled out boots on the ground,’ she said, but added that Trump may still explore other military support options.”
However, comments by Trump’s aides suggest a lack of constancy on his part. One claimed that there was no red line against a U.S. ground presence: “I think it just kind of remains to be seen. [Trump] would like the Europeans to step up. But I think if the last piece of the puzzle was for a period of time to be a part of a peacekeeping force, I think he would do it.” It isn’t clear whether the aide made the comment before or after Trump ruled out a U.S. troop presence, but if the Europeans sense the president is waffling, they can be expected to make it the “last piece.”
Trump evidently has thought none of this through. If two nuclear powers begin shooting at one another, anything could happen. Thus, such a commitment is not in America’s interest. Unfortunately, so far we have more questions than answers.
First, what kind of guarantee, if not through the transatlantic alliance? A formal treaty, confirmed by the U.S. Senate? A presidential agreement, à la the much-derided Budapest Memorandum that accompanied Kiev’s transfer of leftover Soviet nukes to Russia? An off-hand administration statement? The less official, the less credible the threat will be.
Next, what is the specific promise? To send aircraft if Moscow so much as threatens Ukraine? A commitment to consult and maybe respond to Russian aggression militarily, like NATO’s Article 5? A pledge to go to the United Nations for approval, like in the Budapest Memorandum? What of the constitutional requirement of a congressional declaration of war?
Third, to whom is the guarantee made? Ukraine, to defend it if it comes under attack? Or European governments, to protect their troops—whether considered to be peacekeepers or combatants? Would this promise apply if Europeans shot first, perhaps at advancing Russian forces that attempted to avoid engaging the former?
Also, what is the role of European governments? Would they be expected to defeat Russia, with U.S. air support? As Josh Glancy of The Times of London asks: “Does this sluggish, fissiparous continent have the durability and willpower to outlast Putin in Ukraine?” Consider Germany’s role: Chancellor Friedrich Merz declared that “it is absolutely clear that the whole of Europe should participate” in enforcing a peace settlement, yet Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul simultaneously declared that “stationing troops in Ukraine would probably be too much for us.” How would Washington respond to inevitable European whining and wailing, begging for the introduction of U.S. ground forces? Given the continuing effort of European leaders to manipulate Trump on NATO, they are likely to do the same regarding any Ukrainian security guarantees.
Fifth is the most fundamental query: why would a president who resurrected the term “America First” adopt a policy so inimical to this nation’s vital interests? Why would he put more than a score of other governments first, before the American people? Why, after successive presidents refused to bring Ukraine into NATO, would Trump risk war with Russia?
The conflict is a tragedy. Ukraine is suffering greatly, and Moscow is in the wrong. However, blame is shared by the U.S. and Europeans, who did much to turn Russia into an enemy, violating a multitude of assurances to Moscow not to expand NATO. Waging an illegal and aggressive war on Yugoslavia/Serbia, a historic interest of Moscow, over Kosovo was another factor, causing “irreparable damage … to Russian perception of NATO,” according to historian Vladimir Brovkin. Although allied perfidy did not justify Russian aggression, the former helps explain the latter.
Subscribe Today
Get daily emails in your inbox
In any case, Washington should not issue security guarantees against nuclear-armed Russia. As the most secure great power ever, with vast oceans east and west and weak neighbors north and south, the U.S. has little security reason to wander the globe “in search of monsters to destroy,” even in Europe. Ukraine has never been even a marginal security interest for the U.S. That’s why the 1994 Budapest Memorandum provided no military guarantee. And why Washington made only empty promises to Kiev regarding NATO membership before Russia’s invasion. That is also why the Biden administration refused to induct Ukraine despite the latter’s desperate entreaties. Virtually no American was prepared to go to war for Kiev. It is no more vital a U.S. interest today.
Ukraine’s future obviously worries Europe more. However, while Putin long made clear that Kiev’s membership in NATO was a red line for Russia, he has shown no similar interest in other European nations, even the Baltic States. Indeed, he has carefully avoided expansion and escalation of the conflict, especially to NATO members. After all, it would make little sense to attack a member of NATO after invading Ukraine out of fear it would become a member of NATO. Nor is a country which has made only limited military progress in Ukraine after three and a half years of combat likely to launch a Blitzkrieg against the rest of the continent. Finally, the Europeans possess more than enough manpower and materiel to defend themselves. Many of them are spending more, and an increasing number realize that they should prepare to take over from the U.S.
There is no justification for Washington to extend security guarantees of any sort to Ukraine. If Donald Trump believes in America First, he should keep the U.S. out of the current war and any future conflicts involving Ukraine and Russia. His highest duty is to protect this nation, its people, territory, liberties, and wealth. That requires ending Washington’s proxy war against Russia and avoiding any future Ukrainian conflict.
