Witkoff says Trump, Putin agreed to ‘robust security guarantees’ during summit

The Hill ^ | 8/18/2025 | SARAH FORTINSKY

[marcusmaximus]

U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff said on Sunday that President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to “robust” security guarantees, including “effectively” offering Ukraine Article Five-like protection, during their historic Friday meeting.

“We agreed to robust security guarantees that I would describe as game-changing,” Witkoff said in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Witkoff explained that Russia agreed to allow the United States and other European countries to “effectively offer [Ukraine] Article Five-like language to cover a security guarantee,” referring to the provision of NATO that states an attack on one NATO member is seen as an attack on all members.

Russia has long opposed Ukraine’s admission to NATO, Witkoff noted, saying a key reason Ukraine has sought membership is for that protection.

“Everything is going to be about what the Ukrainians can live with, but assuming they could, we were able to win the following concession: that the United States could offer Article Five-like protection, which is one of the real reasons why Ukraine wants to be in NATO,” Witkoff said.

[BobL]

“Pretzel logic. Finland is in NATO.”

We’ll see what becomes of Finland if they get too cute.

But what about the 70 YEARS they were not in NATO and did not threaten Russia?

Nice try!!!

[Magnum44]

NATO protection without the NATO name….

Who would have thunk something so simple as that would satisfy the Russian apologists for Russias invasion of a sovereign nation. 🙄

It’s funny, when Trump said in his campaign he would pull us out, certain apologists and so called Trump supporters cheered. But when Trump makes a deal that obligates us to defend a non-NATO state in the future, the same people say, “well ok”.

[libertylover]

I view this as a very strong development for peace. I hope Trump succeeds but I don’t want American troops there right now.

[Liz]

They’re talking about Article 5 of the NATO Charter. Not the US Constitution.

Oops.

---

Willfully Vague: Why NATO’s Article 5 Is So Misunderstood
Confusion over NATO’s key Article 5 on collective defense predates the alliance itself and still continues.

By Clara Riedenstein, cepa.org, July 1, 2024

A Republican senator stands on the floor of the US Senate. He poses a question: If Russia invades Norway, would the dispatch of 10 gallons of coal oil be enough to fulfill the US’s duty under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty? Of course not, he says, answering his own question and suggesting Article 5 would automatically entangle the US in European conflicts. The power to wage war should, according to the Constitution, belong exclusively to Congress. These are not the words of Senator Paul Rand, who proposed an amendment expressing such concerns in July 2023. Nor are they the words of any other isolationist currently active in US politics. This hypothetical was floated by Senator Forrest Donnell in 1948, a year before the NATO agreement was signed.

The debate over Article 5, when it is invoked, and what its invocation implies, is as much debated today as it was then. While President Biden promises to “defend every inch” of NATO territory, his rival Donald Trump is far more ambivalent. The Article 5 wording is vague. It states that an attack against one member “shall be considered an attack against them all.” What is quoted less often is that each member state only has an obligation to take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.” In other words, Article 5 does not commit member states to deploy military assets if an ally is attacked. It only commits them to some form of response.

The ambiguity was deliberate. It was crafted in response to US reservations about the depth of its military obligations as a member of a transatlantic defense alliance. The isolationist sentiment was still rife in the country, which had come to Europe’s aid in both world wars only after bitter internal debate. US negotiators insisted on a vague formulation from the start. Secretary of State Dean Acheson clarified that it “naturally does not mean that the United

Responses varied based on the legislative process and national sentiment toward the war.

Over 75 years, alliance members have been engaged in numerous conflicts where Article 5 was not invoked.

While collective defense might not take the dramatic shape critics suppose, it does remain critical to NATO’s mission. But that was not always the case.

In the 1990s, after the Cold War, the continued relevance of Article 5 was brought into question. The West had prevailed, it was supposed, and there would be no need for such mutual defense assurances.

Today, in an era marked by renewed geopolitical tensions, Article 5 continues to serve as a vital deterrent, though it leaves open the door for less enthusiastic allies to send coal oil rather than armies.

[Magnum44]

You’re the one who’s cute. The way you guys contort yourself to explain things is a laugh and a riot.🤣

[FlyingEagle]

Europe can pay for that and deliver it. Not us.

[Biblebelter]

ANY agreement between Putin and Trump does NOT have a shelf life beyond their tenure in office.

Trump stated the fundamental truth on Friday,

that Ukraine should make a deal to end the war with Russia because "Russia is a very big power, and they're not",

That is true and always will be.

The Euroweenies are an aging population that cannot renew itself.

The Muslim horde which they have been illegally invaded by are not enlisting to be put in the meat grinder that is occurring in the Ukraine.

History is a b***th.

These regional conflicts have gone on for centuries.

But Western Europe has already been conquered in that they got little fight left.

We saved their bacon once and the graveyards are full of Americans who went to fight and die in far off lands which testify to that.

My father was one of those who crossed the pond although by the Grace of God he came back alive and whole.

He didn't risk all to only have to see future generations of Americans again step in and save those who have done so little with the opportunity given them by the sacrifice of so much American blood and treasure.

When the call to fight is led by the likes of Linda Graham and Stolen Valor Blumenthal, it is a crying shame.

Their call dishonors all those who fought and died in WWII.

Take the agreement that is on the table.

America has its own battle to fight.

We have our own territory to take back.

Trump putting troops on the streets of DC was not only necessary but symbolic.

[dfwgator]

So that they can share the Nobel Peace Prize instead of awarding it to Trump.

---

Let them have it, they can join illustrious company like Yassir Arafat.

[dfwgator]

Turks are going to get it all down the road anyway, when Ottoman 2.0 appears.

[Chad_the_Impaler]

Note the missing word: NATO.

It is obvious that if there is going to be a settlement, the issue of NATO membership is going to have to be finessed. This will be effectively like Ukraine is in NATO, but Putin can claim he didn't cave. But Putin will have given up on part of his overall goal: taking all of Ukraine.

[wardamneagle]

Kind of putting the cart in front of the horse. Need a cease fire first.

[MinorityRepublican]

But Western Europe has already been conquered in that they got little fight left.

At this point, it's a Museum in Western Europe.

Istanbul used to be Constantinople. We are seeing that sort of transition in Western Europe right now.

[Liz]

How come the Z man can be surrounded by his EU pals .....all allied against Trump?
So that they can share the Nobel Peace Prize instead of awarding it to Trump.

---

Makes sense

[nathanbedford]

Moments ago when the news came out that the European leaders were to join Trump and Zelinski in Washington, I published a reply that concluded:

Everything in this visit turns on whether Trump will extend guarantees to Ukraine for a deal that Trump himself has hatched with Putin,

( https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4335053/posts?page=43#43 )

This news, coming out minutes later to the effect that the US will supply "NATO -like" guarantees of the security of Ukraine, means that the deal is very likely to go through. Ukraine will have no practical option but to accept the deal, including loss of territory, because the sovereignty of the nation will be preserved, even if in rump form.

Donald Trump deserves praise for allegedly extending this guarantee that makes peace possible, subject to the observation that this is the guarantee that Zelinski sought in the fateful White House fiasco in which Trump humiliated Zelinski for demanding such a guarantee. Now Trump, if the report is to be believed, is willing to turn about-face and offer the guarantee some months later that might have ended this war then.

One further rather snarky observation is warranted: Trump will now have to reeducate the amen chorus to accept what they had all been conditioned to reject before, an American guarantee.

[Magnum44]

The Euroweenies are an aging population that cannot renew itself.

uh, just wondering if you’ve checked out Russia’s aging demographic lately.

[EQAndyBuzz]

“Right. Which makes it more palatable for Russia, but the US a sitting duck for the Weenies intent on drawing us into war.”

We can supply material and not supply troops. That’s what the EU is for.

[9YearLurker]

Yeah, that’s about to happen.

[mac_truck]

But NATO-like protection, though still optional, is catnip for the scheming Weenies.

I'd prefer the USA stay out of the European "protection" racket...let the EU-Reich handle it on their own.

[9YearLurker]

Agreed. There’s no reason for the US to put our military’s (and population’s) skin in any of their Euro games.

[Lil Flower]

Russia wanted to join NATO and were refused