Can Trump Really Broker a Lasting Peace Between Russia and Ukraine?
Recent meetings between Donald Trump, Volodymyr Zelensky, Vladimir Putin, and several European leaders suggest there may finally be movement toward ending the war in Ukraine. All sides have expressed support for creating security guarantees as part of a broader deal. The problem is, no one fully agrees on what those guarantees should look like.
On Monday, Trump promised Ukraine’s postwar defense commitments during a meeting in Washington with Zelensky and European officials. Just days earlier in Alaska, Trump claimed Putin had also signaled a willingness to accept some form of guarantees. He called it a “very significant step.”
But what does that actually mean?
Competing Views of “Security Guarantees”
For Ukraine and European allies, guarantees would likely involve weapons sales, long-term military aid, and possibly even foreign troops stationed inside Ukraine. From Moscow’s perspective, however, “security guarantees” should be multilateral—meaning Russia itself would help shape and limit when those commitments are triggered. In other words, Moscow doesn’t just want Western promises to Ukraine; it wants a seat at the table.
This divide is at the core of the challenge. As one analyst put it, the success of peace talks may depend on whether the West and Russia can reconcile these two very different interpretations.
The Root of the Conflict
For years, Russia has opposed NATO expansion, particularly the idea of Ukraine joining. A 2008 U.S. diplomatic cable even described Ukraine’s potential membership as “the brightest of all red lines” for Russia’s ruling elite. Moscow views NATO’s growth as a direct threat to its security, while the West frames it as nations seeking protection from Russian aggression.
That tension ultimately set the stage for the invasion in 2022 and continues to shape today’s negotiations.
What Russia Wants
Beyond territory, Russia wants to reshape Europe’s entire security order. Its diplomats have argued for a collective security framework that includes Russia itself—and possibly other major powers—so that no intervention in Ukraine could happen without Moscow’s approval. That would give the Kremlin the ability to block responses it doesn’t like.
European leaders, on the other hand, are looking for binding guarantees that keep the U.S. engaged in Europe’s security. They fear that without Washington’s involvement, they’d be left to face Russia alone.
The Trump Factor
Trump now positions himself as the main broker. He has alternated between praising Putin’s willingness to talk and reassuring Zelensky of U.S. support. But he’s also been clear that Ukraine will not join NATO under his watch and has hinted at “land swaps” as part of a potential settlement—positions that put him at odds with Kyiv and parts of Europe.
Domestically, Trump is also under pressure from parts of his own base who want the U.S. to step back from Ukraine entirely. To calm those fears, he has stressed that U.S. troops will not be deployed, though he has floated the idea of Europeans sending soldiers while America provides air support or coordination.
Are Guarantees Really Guarantees?
Even if European powers agree to new commitments, experts question how far they’d actually go if Russia tested them again. Would European parliaments ratify treaties obligating them to fight? Would leaders truly risk direct war with Russia? If not, the guarantees may be closer to “assurances” than hard promises.
In the best-case scenario, a deal might eventually lead to some easing of sanctions, limited arms control talks, and a gradual rebuilding of trust. But even then, most experts believe NATO and Russia will remain locked in a tense standoff for years to come.
0 Comments