Posted on 08/17/2025 10:16:18 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
So how is that different from letting Ukraine join NATO outright ? Does the name NATO bother him ?
In case you hadn't heard, words mean things.
I simply don’t believe this. Russia will not accept Ukraine being admitted into NATO largely because of Article 5. So “Article 5-ish” is okay? Something is being intentionally misrepresented here.
The much thornier issue will be the land swaps: Putin is offering the small parts of the Sumy and Kharkov oblasts he occupies in exchange for the remainder of Donetsk. Hard to see the Ukrainians accepting that. A better deal would be all of Donetsk in exchange for the currently occupied parts of Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts, with water rights for Crimea restored and maybe free-passage of trains to Crimea through Ukrainian territory.
That’s a good question. The answer is actually to Ukraine’s favor.
NATO rules does not allow membership if an applicant country does not have control of all of its territory and there is no conflict for it. So Russia allowing something vague like this provides something to Ukraine it could not have otherwise, since it will always claim territory it has no control over.
In a general sense Russia can pass this law prohibiting attacks westward for the two obvious reasons that they would not want to deal with all those violent Muslim refugees whose population is now growing via birthrate as well as influx.
And of course, the realities of running short of oil and gas after all other sources. They will dominate Europe in an inevitable way, without use of military force.
NATO has never been a threat to Russia and Putin knows that: until 2022, the Europeans had been basically disarming themselves. Any NATO attack would require unanimity a political impossibility) plus a couple of million men in fully equipped and trained divisions (a physical impossibility).
“Putin agreed to let US, Europe offer NATO-style security protections for Ukraine, Trump envoy says”
The Russians like Witkoff, so I expect them to give Witkoff a friendly phone call to CLARIFY things.
Your #7:... very good points.
Oh, this is not that extreme.
A NATO-like security guarantee calls forth troops if there is an attack. The tripwire force could be as small as 100 guys.
Certainly not 10s of thousands of troops preparing to invade the Donbas. Just some token number of guys who are there to get killed in an attack and trigger a response.
The real interesting part will be when the EU refuses to accept such a thing because Trump will tell them that yes, the security is guaranteed. A tripwire is triggered for EU forces to immediately confront Russian troops.
The EU will refuse this. They will say, it is US troops that have to respond. Not EU troops.
There is no chance Trump is going to offer Article 5 protection to Ukraine because there is no scenario where risk getting us involved in a hot war with Russia.
And the Euros should bear most of the security responsibility not us.
Something to think about.
Putin may be open to this “NATO style” security agreement IF IF IF Trump has said this arrangement we will not put US troops on the ground in the Ukraine.
In other words, Putin will “honor” the agreement as long as Trump in office.
When Trump leaves office, Putin will do whatever he wants and put the future POTUS in a bind.
Since there are NO American troops on the ground, does the new guy or gal put troops on the ground.
Personally, I have no problem with that arrangement.
Peace in the middle of Europe is very temporal and very fragile.
RE: in case you hadn’t heard, words mean things.
I know several couples who have lived together for several years, have children, have joint bank accounts and are in each other’s respective wills, BUT ARE NOT OFFICIALLY MARRIED, not in church or even in a civil wedding.
Similarly, I guess that’s what Ukraine not officially joining NATO but enjoying NATO-style security means…
I agree this idea will likely collapse once they try to work out details.
Friend with benefits?
100% correct. The fog of the fake MSM
NATO membership was a red line, security guarantees were not. Security guarantees are something Ukraine cannot survive without, as Russia would just be back in 5 or 10 years to take Kharkiv, Kherson and Odesa. Lather, rinse, repeat until Russia shares a border with Poland.
But I suspect there are details that will make security guarantees toothless. Like limiting Ukraine's ability to defend herself. "Disarming" Ukraine has been a stated Russian goal from the beginning. Guarantees or not, if Ukraine doesn't have a robust military force to resist a future invasion, no one is going to rush in to fight for them.
I’m pretty sure there is an exclusion of moving missiles within a 5 minute flight time to Moscow in this proposal. Defense, sure... Offense, no
What is it about NATO membership that makes it a red line ? Clearly it's not the security guarantees.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.