Meetings held at the White House on August 18 between U.S. President Donald J. Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, along with discussions involving key European leaders, provided a much-needed shift in tone after a concerning U.S. retreat regarding Ukraine just days earlier. On August 16, President Trump met Russian President Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, where the atmosphere was notably different.
The Anchorage meeting highlighted Trump’s longstanding push for a ceasefire and his intent to apply increased economic pressure on Russia should Putin refuse to engage in constructive dialogue. However, when pressed, Putin rejected the ceasefire proposal outright, reiterating his demands, which framed the conflict’s underlying issues as rooted in grievances that include Ukraine’s sovereignty.
This lack of movement prompted President Trump to abandon his ceasefire demand and instead align with Putin’s preference for a comprehensive settlement. Such a course of action allowed Russia to continue military operations while ostensibly engaging in peace talks.
Compounding the issue, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio weakened U.S. leverage on August 17 by downplaying the potential for further economic sanctions, arguing that they would impede negotiations. This stance contradicted historical lessons about dealing with adversaries—where negotiating from a strong position is more effective than appearing conciliatory.
To facilitate a potential resolution to the ongoing conflict, crucial elements for a settlement have been well-documented. The primary concern revolves around the issue of territory. An optimal solution would involve reaching an agreement on a stable yet provisional line of contact, as opposed to a permanent border settlement, which would reward territorial aggression and contradict long-standing U.S. policy.
Even more critical is ensuring long-term security for Ukraine. Without these assurances, the risk of Russia resuming attacks and seizing further territories remains high. The meetings among Trump, Zelenskyy, and European leaders seemed to make headway on the security front.
In defense of the Anchorage talks, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff asserted on television that Putin had indicated a willingness to provide “robust security guarantees” for Ukraine. This could involve U.S. and European commitments of an “Article 5-like” nature, despite Ukraine not being granted NATO membership. If genuine, this would represent a significant concession from Putin, abandoning previous demands to limit Ukraine’s military capacity and foreign military aid that would leave the nation vulnerable.
Historically, Western security assurances given to Ukraine—including those articulated in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum—have proven ineffective following Russia’s invasion in 2014. Any new guarantees will need to be markedly more substantial. While the Ukrainian people remain the first line of defense, it is essential they receive support to rebuild their military, enhance defense industries, and secure ongoing supplies of Western weapons.
A more robust “Article 5-like” security guarantee could promote a serious commitment from the West to assist Ukraine in defending its territory. This strategy will require substantial collaboration and support from U.S. and European forces.
Currently, U.S. military involvement is presumed to involve intelligence, logistic support, and air power—key elements that many European partners lack. Should Russia launch a renewed attack on Ukraine, U.S. air support would be crucial in defense efforts. However, the extent of the administration’s willingness to extend these military commitments remains uncertain.
While Witkoff’s comments suggested a straightforward narrative of Russian acceptance of Western security guarantees, the reality may be more complex. It is plausible that Putin could propose joining U.S. and European efforts as a mutual guarantor of Ukraine’s security, which would effectively provide Russia with a veto over any Western assistance—a far cry from the robust security needed.
Diplomatic acumen is needed to navigate these intricate negotiations, not just to avoid missteps caused by inexperience. The expectation that Russia would accept some form of Western military assistance for Ukraine remains dubious, especially given recent rejection by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding any NATO presence inside Ukraine.
The territory issue remains contentious. The Trump administration has previously broached the idea of “land swaps,” although specifics have not been articulated. Reports suggest that Russia may be demanding Ukraine pull back completely from portions of Luhansk and Donetsk, which have seen protracted conflict over the past three years, without any commitment to returning other sections of occupied territory.
The desirable course of action would align with establishing a demarcation line based on the existing front line, avoiding the perilous precedent of recognizing formal annexation, which would undermine decades of U.S. foreign policy.
Conversely, the grimmer alternative involves a binding, permanent “swap,” which, while morally and legally contentious, could become a politically feasible resolution. Russia might demand all of Luhansk and Donetsk in exchange for withdrawing its claim on other provinces partially occupied, retaining Crimea in the process.
An agreement of such a nature would signal both U.S. vulnerabilities and a troubling concession to Russian expansionism. Acceptance by Ukrainians would hinge on the existence of solid security guarantees akin to NATO’s Article 5.
Lessons from history provide some perspective; Finland’s experience during the Winter War offers a parallel. The Finns valiantly resisted Soviet advances, ultimately surrendering territory—yet they preserved their nation’s sovereignty and unity. The outcome is viewed proudly by many Finns, who recognize the decision as the best available at the time. Ukraine, too, might find itself faced with a similar dilemma, weighing territorial losses against the need to safeguard unoccupied regions of the country.
For any prospective deal—whether deemed fair or unfavorable—the consensus among U.S. and European leaders must be unwavering support for Ukraine’s leadership and populace. Transitioning from a weakened stance, as observed during the Anchorage engagement, will necessitate a return to a proactive strategy marked by economic pressure and consolidation of military support.
The time for deliberation is running short; Ukraine requires steadfast allies willing to counter Russia’s unwarranted advances aggressively. Only then can any hope of a viable settlement, one that prioritizes Ukrainian sovereignty and security, see the light of day.
image source from：justsecurity
