President Trump Considering MAJOR Security Guarantee in Exchange for Peace Deal | WLT Report Skip to main content
BoomMag: Readers and Fans
Advertise With Us Newsletter

WLT Report WLT Report

Advertise With Us Newsletter
We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here.

President Trump Considering MAJOR Security Guarantee in Exchange for Peace Deal

606 views

President Trump is considering a highly controversial move in order to achieve a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine.

In an effort to thread the needle between each side’s stated concerns, he is reportedly offering a major security guarantee for Ukraine.

This security guarantee has been described by one Trump Administration official as being on par with NATO’s Article 5 mutual defense clause.

Meaning… if Russia were to attack or re-invade Ukraine after this potential deal is signed, Ukraine could count on a military response from a contingent of American and specific European nations — NOT NATO ITSELF — to directly provide for it’s defense against Russian forces.

ADVERTISEMENT

With this highly controversial potential move making waves, President Trump took to social media last night to emphasize “some things never change”, as shared by the White House Rapid Response account on X:

The President seemed to dig in his heels on 3 specific points, likely being discussed at the White House by world leaders at this very moment:

  1. He is against forcing Russia to give Crimea back (lost under Obama).
  2. It is basically up to Zelensky at this point to accept a peace deal, or blow it.
  3. Ukraine should NOT become a NATO member.

As we get into the specifics of the security guarantee that President Trump is offering, it becomes obvious that those three things are key.

For his part, Zelensky seems thrilled at the prospect of a security guarantee backed in part by the United States — with one stipulation — according to Fox News:

NATO’s Article 5 – the cornerstone of the alliance – stipulates that an attack on one member is an assault on all, obligating allies to come to each other’s defense. The proposed security guarantees for Ukraine would not come through NATO, but rather from select European allies in the event of a Russia-Ukraine peace deal.

Zelenskyy welcomed the revelation during a Sunday press conference alongside European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

“It’s important that America agrees to work with Europe to provide security guarantees for Ukraine, and we are very thankful to the United States under the president for such a signal,” Zelenskyy said.

“This is a significant change, but there are no details about how it will work and what America’s role will be, what Europe’s role will be and what the EU can do,” he added.

Over the weekend, Zelenskyy reiterated that his war-weary nation will not surrender any territory to Russia as the Kremlin’s three-and-a-half-year conflict grinds on.

ADVERTISEMENT

“The constitution of Ukraine makes it impossible to give up territory or trade land,” Zelenskyy said during a press conference at the EU Commission on Sunday.

“The constitution of Ukraine makes it impossible to give up territory or trade land,” Zelenskyy said during a press conference at the EU Commission on Sunday.

He added that Russia has repeatedly tried and failed to seize the entirety of the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine for a period of 12 years. (Emphasis added.)

As Fox News quoted Zelensky in that article, the Ukrainian leader is adamant that a peace deal will not include conceding territory to Russia.

That isn’t a new point from Zelensky.  He has consistently held that as a non-negotiable.

Except… is it?  Is that REALLY a non-negotiable for Zelensky?

It seems as though what Zelensky actually means when he says he’ll never concede territory for peace MIGHT HAVE CHANGED since his last White House beatdown with President Trump and Vice President Vance.

While Zelensky continues to emphasize the Constitutional inability to cede or trade land, he has essentially stopped talking about Crimea all together — and even in that article focused only on the contested Donbas region.

ADVERTISEMENT

If you’ll remember during the last round of peace talks, the idea was floated that current front lines and held territory would not be changed, but the ability for Ukraine to DIPLOMATICALLY continue “fighting” for it’s lost territories would remain on the table.

That previously used face-saving tactic by Ukraine could still be in play, allowing them to “give up” territory… without actually saying they’re giving up territory.

Could we be seeing that strategic face-saving positioning by both sides preparing to make concessions, while still sticking to their guns on specific issues to appease their domestic audience?

Maybe.

But you also likely noticed in the excerpt from the Fox News article I quoted above (I emphasized this in BOLD) that NATO would not be the guarantor of this proposed security guarantee.

The US military would be partially on the line for that, which is the most controversial part of this proposal.

Sen. Mike Lee offered up an ‘amendment’ of sorts to the notion, suggesting a specialized unit to be fielded for the defense of Ukraine… if that’s what Zelensky is after:

Steven Bannon took to the airwaves today with a little more direct pushback on a US security guarantee for Ukraine.

Bannon emphasized a different “security guarantee” still needing to be fully worked out for Americans in this clip from this morning’s War Room show:

Bannon’s key point is that providing security for Ukrainians “isn’t in the vital national interest of the United States of America”.

ADVERTISEMENT

And what makes many people uncomfortable is the possibility that a security guarantee might need to be made good on — and then what?

Would we be just as obligated to put American men and women into harms’ way — and potentially kick off WWIII — as we would have if Ukraine simply joined NATO?

That scenario could prove very costly, in more ways than one… which is why the prospect is stirring up controversy.

As for the details of the proposed security guarantee, not everything has been worked out.

But amazingly, it WAS floated to Putin during the talks between him and President Trump in Alaska a few days ago… and he apparently agreed in theory.

Check out this Fox News report focused on the potential BREAKTHROUGH that a security guarantee brokered by President Trump — and greenlit by Putin — could be:

US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff emphasized the surprising moment that a security guarantee backed by US and European allies went from a known impossibility because of Putin’s resistance to it…

And turned into something that President Trump now sees as a real possibility to provide a path forward for a true peace agreement, with Putin essentially agreeing, as reported by Politico:

U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff, while talking up the wins from the Friday meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, said the two leaders had unexpectedly reached agreement on allowing post-war security guarantees to Ukraine.

“We got to an agreement that the United States and other European nations could effectively offer Article 5-like language to cover a security guarantee,” Witkoff said on CNN.

Zelenskyy said in a statement: “This is a historic decision that the United States is ready to take part in security guarantees for Ukraine. Security guarantees, as a result of our joint work, must really be very practical, delivering protection on land, in the air, and at sea, and must be developed with Europe’s participation.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Following a meeting on Sunday afternoon with other heads of state that support Ukraine, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron commended Trump’s apparent willingness to provide security guarantees to Ukraine and reaffirmed their commitment to “deploy a reassurance force once hostilities have ceased.”

According to that report, some of the most likely European nations that would partner with the US to back that security guarantee are more than ready and willing to sign on.

Again, that doesn’t particularly smack of ‘America First’; hence… this remains a highly controversial potential move by President Trump among his supporters.

Speaking of someone who tends to stir up controversy…

I want to close out this story with a video from Glenn Beck on this issue.

Beck comes at this from the angle that President Trump MAY have just hit golden pay dirt with this security guarantee.

I’ll list my takeaways below, in the case you’re short on time.

Here’s that clip, and Beck’s explanation:

Here’s the full screen version of that video for convenience:

I’m not saying I agree with every point, but that is an interesting angle to consider.

Particularly when a wrong step could kick off an incredibly kinetic WWIII scenario!

Here are my key takeaways from the Glenn Beck’s angle on this story of a possible NON-NATO security guarantee for Ukraine:

  • Russia says… it just wants a bufferzone between its territory and NATO countries.
  • Ukraine says… it wants full NATO membership because they don’t trust that Russia won’t attack or re-invade in the future.
  • Hitler may have never risen to power and been able to kick off WWII… if WWI didn’t end with the Treaty of Versailles — which focused heavily on punishing the aggressor (Germany).
  • Israel might be a good example for both sides to look at — which actually gave up territory taken from the aggressor nations following the Six Day War, saying they only wanted a buffer zone…
  • The Trump Administration says… it is close to an “Article 5-like” agreement that provides security guarantees for Ukraine that would not come from NATO — and does not include Ukrainian NATO membership.
  • Both Russia and Ukraine claim historic injustices from the other…
  • But are both countries serious enough about ending this war to make those imperfect — but practical — concessions?

With historic meetings covering these very issues going on right this moment in the White House, we may get some clarity soon on exactly where things will land.

While an end to the fighting and killing would be a huge win — something President Trump has consistently said is his goal — is a security guarantee backed by the United States military the answer?

That question is being hotly debated on social media, as well as inside high-level meetings at the White House among world leaders at this very moment.

We’ll bring you news of any decisions and breakthroughs from President Trump’s attempt at stopping the Russia-Ukraine war as it develops.


 

Join the conversation!

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!

log in

Forgot password?

reset password

Back to
log in
Leave a comment
Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for sharing!
We invite you to become a WLT Report insider. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.