Pentagon insider reveals key Trump strategy as he negotiates with Putin

Over the past week, Donald Trump’s approach to Ukraine has taken a significant turn, and it’s raising both optimism and caution among diplomats.

At the Washington summit with President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump hinted at a US-backed security guarantee for Ukraine. For many observers, that was a signal that Russia has failed to divide the West, but they also warned that turning this idea into a real agreement will take months of difficult negotiations.

Admiral Mike Hewitt, who co-chairs the Ukraine Reconstruction Summit, noted that Trump is now acting more like a politician than just a deal-maker. In his words, “a ceasefire isn’t a deal.” Trump seems to understand that if he wants a breakthrough, it has to go beyond temporary pauses in fighting. Still, his remark that Ukraine will “never get Crimea back” shows how much domestic politics shape his diplomacy.

There was some genuine progress, though. Going from Trump’s first meeting with Vladimir Putin in Alaska to the Zelensky talks in Washington showed unexpected momentum. As Hewitt put it: “The goal of the first meeting was to get to a second. And the second happened faster than I thought possible.”

Former UN Undersecretary General Rose Gottemoeller described Trump’s openness to offering a US security guarantee as “a huge breakthrough.” She argued it reassured not just Ukraine but also NATO allies who have worried about Washington’s long-term commitment to Europe. She even compared it to the US role in South Korea after 1945 something that became a durable security partnership.

The presence of European leaders like Germany’s Friedrich Merz and France’s Emmanuel Macron was also significant. Hewitt said it wasn’t just about supporting Zelensky, but also about tying Trump into Western unity so that Putin can’t exploit divisions.

The most talked-about proposal was Trump’s idea of an “Article 5-style” guarantee a collective defense commitment similar to NATO’s founding clause. Hewitt stressed that without such deterrence, Putin would see opportunities to violate agreements.

But not everyone is convinced. Some analysts see Trump enjoying the spotlight without offering a clear path forward. Others, like Anatol Lieven of the Quincy Institute, argue that the idea of an Article 5-like guarantee is still vague. Would the US really commit to going to war for Ukraine? Probably not. Would Putin ever accept NATO-backed forces in Ukraine? Also unlikely. For skeptics, this could just be a way to “save face” while only promising more weapons and training.

Former US ambassador to NATO Nicholas Burns added another layer of caution. He reminded everyone that “peace is not built overnight” and warned that Ukraine must have firm guarantees before signing anything. He floated the idea of a NATO-backed security presence in Ukraine, with American intelligence and air support, but without ground troops.

Despite these doubts, Hewitt ended on a more positive note. He suggested NATO should take encouragement from Trump’s willingness to keep Ukraine’s sovereignty on the table. In his words: “If I’m NATO and I now realise the president of the United States is willing to put troops on the ground if that’s what it takes, it should give me great confidence. I don’t think he says that for theatre.”

So while there’s no quick solution in sight, the fact that serious conversations are happening and that the US is openly discussing security guarantees is itself a step forward.