What would US-backed security guarantees for Ukraine look like?

Published

3 months ago

August 19, 2025

admin

Promises of security guarantees for Ukraine have been lauded as “game-changing” and “historic” in the hope of bringing an end to the war with Russia.

As all eyes moved from Donald Trump’s summit with Vladimir Putin in Alaska to talks with Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Washington, the White House claimed Russia has agreed to the US providing ‘NATO-style protection’ when the fighting ends.

Trump rules out US troops in Ukraine; latest updates

Although there has been no confirmation from the Kremlin, Ukraine, the UK, and other Western allies say details of a post-war security agreement will be finalised in the coming days.

What has been said so far?

Security guarantees have long been talked about as a way of ensuring peace in Ukraine when fighting comes to an end.

Since March, when the UK and France spearheaded a largely European ‘coalition of the willing’ and potential peacekeeping force, many have claimed it would be ineffective without American backing.

The US has repeatedly refused to be drawn on its involvement – until now.

Two days after Mr Putin travelled to Alaska for talks with the Trump team, US special envoy Steve Witkoff claimed Russia had agreed to Ukrainian security guarantees.

He claimed that during the summit, the Kremlin had conceded the US “could offer Article-5 like protection”, which he described as “game-changing”. Article 5 is one of the founding principles of NATO and states that an attack on any of its 32 member states is considered an attack on them all.

This was bolstered by the US president himself after he met his Ukrainian counterpart in Washington on Monday. He said the pair had “discussed security guarantees”, which would be “provided by the various European countries” – “with coordination with the United States of America”.

Writing on X the following day, the Ukrainian leader said the “concrete content” of the security agreement would be “formalised on paper within the next 10 days”.

US reports say security agreement talks will be headed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

What would security guarantees look like?

Very few details have emerged so far, despite the series of high-profile meetings.

Speaking to Fox News on Tuesday, Mr Trump said European nations are going to “frontload” the security agreement with soldiers.

“They want to have boots on the ground”, he told the broadcaster, referring to the UK, France, and Germany in particular.

He insisted the US would not send ground troops, adding: “You have my assurance and I’m president.”

Sir Keir Starmer said the coalition of the willing is “preparing for the deployment of a reassurance force” in the event of “hostilities ending”.

This was the original basis for the coalition – soldiers from various European and allied nations placed strategically across Ukraine to deter Russia from launching future attacks.

But troops alone are unlikely to be enough of a deterrent for Vladimir Putin, military analyst Sean Bell says.

“This is all about credibility and I don’t think boots on the ground is a credible answer,” he tells Sky News.

Stationing soldiers along Ukraine’s 1,000-mile border with Russia would require around 100,000 soldiers at a time, which would have to be trained, deployed, and rotated, requiring 300,000 in total.

The entire UK Army would only make up 10% of that, with France likely able to contribute a further 10%, Bell says.

Several European nations would feel unable to sacrifice any troops for an umbrella force due to their proximity to Ukraine and risk of further Russian aggression.

“You’re not even close to getting the numbers you need,” Bell adds. “And even if you could, putting all of NATO’s frontline forces in one country facing Russia would be really dangerous – and leave China, North Korea, Iran, or Russia free to do whatever they wanted.”

History of failed security agreements in Ukraine

Current proposals for Ukrainian security guarantees are far from the first.

In December 1994, Ukraine signed the Budapest Memorandum alongside the UK, US, and Russia.

The Ukrainians agreed to give up their Soviet-inherited nuclear weapons in exchange for recognition of their sovereignty and a place on the UN’s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Twenty years later in 2014, however, Russia violated the terms with its illegal annexation of Crimea and the war between Russian-backed separatists and Ukrainian in the Donbas region.

Similarly, the Minsk Agreements of 2014 and 2015 were designed to bring an end to the Donbas war.

Mediated by France and Germany, they promised a ceasefire, withdrawal of weapons, and local elections in the separatist-occupied Donbas, but were repeatedly violated and failed to result in lasting peace.

‘Article 5-like protection’

When Mr Witkoff first mentioned security guarantees again, he described them as “Article 5-like” or “NATO-style”.

Article 5 is one of the founding principles of NATO and states that an attack on any of its 32 member states is considered an attack on them all.

It has only ever been invoked once since its inception in 1949 – by the US in response to the 9/11 attacks of 2001.

Russia has repeatedly insisted Ukraine should not be allowed to join NATO and cited the risk of it happening among its original reasons for attacking Kyiv in 2022.

NATO general-secretary Mark Rutte has said Ukrainian membership is not on the table, but that an alternative “Article 5-type” arrangement could be viable.

The alliance’s military leaders are due to meet on Wednesday to discuss options.

It is not clear how such a special security agreement and formal NATO membership would differ.

Bell says that negotiations on this – and any surrendering of Ukrainian territory – will be the two most difficult in ending the war.

But he stresses they are both key in providing the “flesh on the bones” to what the coalition of the willing has offered so far.

“It will be about trying to find things that make the Western commitment to the security of Ukraine enduring,” Bell adds.

US airpower, intelligence and a better Ukrainian military

Other potential options for a security agreement include air support, a no-maritime zone, intelligence sharing, and military supplies.

Imposing either a no-fly over Ukraine or no-maritime zone across the Black Sea would “play to NATO’s strengths” – as US air and naval capabilities alone far outstrip Russia’s, Bell says.

Sharing American intelligence with Kyiv to warn of any future Russian aggression would also be a “massive strength” to any potential deterrence force, he adds.

Ukraine is already offering to buy an extra $90bn (£66.6bn) in US weapons with the help of European funds, Mr Zelenskyy said this week.

And any security agreement would likely extend to other military equipment, logistics, and training to help Ukraine better defend itself years down the line, Bell says.

“At first it would need credible Western support, but over time, you would hope the international community makes sure Ukraine can build its own indigenous capability.

“Because while there’s a lot of focus on Ukraine at the moment, in five years’ time, there will be different governments and different priorities – so that has to endure.”

US

‘He must have got this from K’: What mistaken tweet tells us about ‘secret’ plan to end Ukraine war

Published

1 day ago

November 20, 2025

admin

'He must have got this from K': What mistaken tweet tells us about 'secret' plan to end Ukraine war

There are developments in the quest for peace in Ukraine.

It’s been one of those days when different snippets of news have come together to create a picture of sorts. The jigsaw remains complicated, but the suggestion is neither the Ukrainians nor the Europeans have been privy to the developments.

As it happened: Russia responds to spy ship claim

The most intriguing development came at lunchtime on Thursday.

“He must have got this from K…” wrote Donald Trump‘s special envoy Steve Witkoff on X. He clearly thought he was sending a private message.

He was replying to a scoop of a story by Axios’s Barak Ravid.

The story revealed a “secret” plan to end the Ukraine war. The report suggested the Americans had been talking secretly to the Russians about a renewed effort to bring the war to an end, which involved Ukraine ceding land it still controls to Russia.

Who is “K” in Witkoff’s message? It’s probably Kirill Dmitriev, who has become Putin’s unofficial and unlikely envoy to Washington. Kyiv-born and Stanford-educated Dmitriev is, essentially, Witkoff’s Russian opposite number.

In a sense, they are the yin and yang of this geopolitical puzzle. Witkoff is a real estate mogul. Dmitriev is an economist. They are opposing forces with backgrounds that are, on the face of it, equally unsuited to geopolitical conflict resolution. Yet their two leaders are trusting them with this huge task.

‘Territorial concessions’ in 28-point plan

So, back to the developments to have emerged over the last 24 hours.

First, we know senior US Department of War officials, including Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, have arrived in the Ukrainian capital to meet their counterparts there.

Their visit was scheduled but the focus shifted. The plan to discuss drone technology and the winter offensive morphed into a discussion about a Russian-presented peace plan Witkoff and Dmitriev had been discussing.

This is the second development. The Axios report – which Witkoff seems inadvertently to have suggested came from Dmitriev – claims the two envoys met recently in Florida (Witkoff’s base) to discuss a 28-point plan for peace.

A defence official told our partners at NBC News that Driscoll has been briefed on the 28-point plan. Driscoll and his military staff are thought to have been presenting an initial brief to the Ukrainian side of this Russian-sponsored plan.

Ukrainian sources have suggested to me in clear terms they are not happy with this Witkoff-Dmitriev plan. Sources tell me it includes “territorial concessions” and “reductions in military strength”. The Ukrainian position is the plan represents the latest attempt to “play the American government”.

What’s happening with security guarantees?

Ukraine wants security guarantees from the US. Trump signalled during Zelenskyy’s last visit to Washington that he was willing to provide those. This was framed by the Europeans as a huge positive development, even though the White House did not spell out the crucial detail – what would these guarantees actually entail?

The latest reporting, from Axios, suggests the security guarantees (still undefined, publicly at least) are dependent on Ukraine giving up the whole of the Donbas region – this would include about 15% of territory Russia does not currently hold.

Crucially, the areas of the Donbas from which Ukraine would withdraw (the 15%) would be considered a demilitarised zone. The plan is very similar to one floated by Vice President JD Vance in the months before Trump won last year’s election, which was roundly rejected as a non-starter at the time.

Is Gaza plan the model?

Another source, from a third country close to the negotiations, has told me the Qataris are playing a role in the talks and were present at the weekend when Steve Witkoff met Ukraine’s national security advisor Rustem Umerov last weekend.

Qatari and Turkish mediation, along with the multipoint peace plan for Gaza, is being projected as a model transferable to Ukraine despite the conflict, challenges, and root causes being wholly different.

Other European sources told me this morning they were not aware of this Russian-American plan. It’s worth remembering it’s in the interests of the Russians to be seen to be engaged in peace proposals in order to avoid secondary sanctions from the US.

Zelenskyy has been in Turkey over the past 24 hours, where he singled out Trump’s efforts to find peace.

“Since the beginning of this year, we in Ukraine have supported every decisive step and the leadership of @POTUS, every strong and fair proposal aimed at ending this war.” Zelenskyy wrote. “And only President Trump and the United States have sufficient power to make this war come to an end.”

This is the vital language of flattery.

US

Deadline day for Andrew to respond to Epstein inquiry – but it’s hard to imagine why he’d talk

Published

1 day ago

November 20, 2025

admin

Deadline day for Andrew to respond to Epstein inquiry - but it's hard to imagine why he'd talk

They’ve said they are offering him an opportunity to tell them everything, once and for all.

But as we hit the two-week deadline set by the US Congress committee investigating Jeffrey Epstein for a reply from Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, will he agree to their request to open up about the paedophile financier?

The letter sent by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said members wanted to talk to him because of the widely reported allegations that have been made against him, which he denies, and because of his relationship with Epstein and what he may have seen.

The committee is looking into Epstein’s crimes and his wider sex trafficking network. Andrew was given until today, 20 November, to respond.

Legally he isn’t obliged to talk to them, and to be honest it’s hard to imagine why he would.

The only time he has spoken at length about the allegations against him and his relationship with Epstein was that Newsnight interview in 2019, and we all know how much of a disaster that was.

Yes, this could be an opportunity for him to publicly apologise for keeping up his links with Epstein, which he has never done before, or show some sympathy towards Epstein’s victims, even as he vehemently denies the allegations against him.

But while there is the moral argument that he should tell the committee everything he knows, it could also raise more uncomfortable questions for him, and that could feel like too much of a risk for Andrew and the wider Royal Family.

However, even saying no won’t draw all this to a close. There are other outstanding loose ends.

The Metropolitan Police still have to tell us if they intend to take any further action after they said they were looking into claims Andrew had asked one of his officers to dig up dirt on his accuser, Virginia Giuffre.

There could also still be a debate in parliament about the Andrew problem.

The Liberal Democrats have said they want to use their opposition debating time to bring the issue to the floor of the House of Commons, while other MPs on the Public Accounts Committee have signalled their intention to look into Andrew’s finances and housing arrangements.

And then there are the wider Epstein files over in America, and what information they may hold.

From developments this week, it seems we are edging ever closer to seeing those released.

All of this may mean Andrew in other ways is forced to say more than he wants to, even without opening up to the Congress committee.

US

Trump signs bill approving release of Epstein files

Published

1 day ago

November 20, 2025

admin

Trump signs bill approving release of Epstein files

Donald Trump has signed a bill approving the release of files relating to Jeffrey Epstein by the US Justice Department.

“I HAVE JUST SIGNED THE BILL TO RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES!” he said in a Truth Social post, following a lengthy preamble aimed at discrediting the Democrats.

“Democrats have used the ‘Epstein’ issue, which affects them far more than the Republican Party, in order to try and distract from our AMAZING Victories,” he continued.

It comes after the Senate finished the formalities and sent the proposed legislation to the president’s desk, having comfortably cleared a vote in the House of Representatives on Tuesday.

The Justice Department now has 30 days to release the documents it holds on the paedophile financier.

WHAT DOES THE BILL SAY MUST BE RELEASED?

All files relating to Epstein, including investigations, prosecutions, or custodial matters;
All files relating to Ghislaine Maxwell;
Flight logs or travel records for any aircraft, vessel, or vehicle owned, operated, or used by Epstein or any related entity;
Individuals named or referenced in connection with Epstein’s criminal activities, civil settlements, immunity or plea agreements, or investigations;
Entities with known or alleged ties to Epstein’s trafficking or financial networks;
Any immunity deals, non-prosecution agreements, plea bargains, or sealed settlements involving Epstein or his associates;
Internal DOJ communications concerning decisions to charge, not charge, investigate, or decline to investigate Epstein or his associates;
All communications concerning the destruction, deletion, alteration, misplacement, or concealment of files related to Epstein;
Documentation of Epstein’s detention or death, including witness interviews and autopsy reports.

How did we get here?

Mr Trump promised during last year’s election campaign to release the Epstein files in full, but has since spent months decrying them as a Democratic “hoax”.

His links to the Epstein have long been subject to scrutiny. Mr Trump has always denied any wrongdoing.

His change of heart on releasing the files came as a surprise over the weekend, as he called on Republicans in Congress to vote for the so-called Epstein Files Bill and indicated he’d sign it.

“Because of this request, the votes were almost unanimous in favor [sic] of passage,” Mr Trump wrote in his late-night post announcing the signing of the bill.

The House of Representatives was indeed near unanimous in voting for the material to be released, with 427 in favour and one against.

Hot on the heels of that vote, which was met with cheers in the chamber, the Senate said it too would pass the bill.

Trump tries to tie Democrats to Epstein

Mr Trump’s post repeatedly labels Epstein as a Democrat, citing his past associations with the likes of Bill Clinton.

Mr Trump has said he wants the Justice Department to investigate Epstein’s links to Mr Clinton, former treasury secretary Larry Summers, and Reid Hoffman, the LinkedIn founder, who is also a prominent Democratic donor.

All three men were mentioned in the 20,000 other Epstein-related documents released by Congress’s House Oversight Committee last week. None of them, however, have been accused of wrongdoing in the case.

Tap here to follow Trump100 wherever you get your podcasts

Emails, photos and other documents released by Congress in recent weeks have included references to Mr Trump, the UK’s since sacked US ambassador Lord Mandelson, and former British prince Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, who has faced calls from members of the committee to give evidence.

Like Mr Trump, both Britons have denied any wrongdoing and expressed regret about their relationship with Epstein.

The deadline for Mr Mountbatten-Windsor to respond to an official request from the committee is today.

Unrest in MAGA world

The issue has proved to be a major source of division within Mr Trump’s Make America Great Again movement.

Marjorie Taylor Greene, a long-time Trump backer who publicly fell out with the president just days ago, stood with Epstein survivors on the steps of the Capitol ahead of Tuesday’s Congress votes.

She said: “These women have fought the most horrific fight that no woman should have to fight. And they did it by banding together and never giving up.”

Read more: Who is Marjorie Taylor Greene?