FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
August 18, 2025
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org
WASHINGTON, DC—Today, President Trump hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and several European leaders at the White House. Defense Priorities experts issued the following statements in response.
From Benjamin H. Friedman, Policy Director at Defense Priorities:
“Despite the hype, there’s little indication that peace in Ukraine is at hand. The idea behind this latest push for peace seems to be that Ukraine will give up its remaining land in Donbas in exchange for some sort of security guarantee, short of NATO membership. But Ukraine is unlikely to accept that deal, and if it did, it would be in exchange for real security guarantees, meaning a U.S. military commitment to fight for it, which Russia will never accept.
“Today’s multilateral talks do not change the reality that war is likely to continue for the foreseeable future, and Russia is trying to exploit Ukraine’s manpower shortage, which no amount of Western support can fix.
“President Trump and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff’s suggestion that Ukraine might receive Article 5-type security guarantees outside of NATO is a disaster for U.S. interests, mitigated only by the fact that Russia will not accept it. The United States cannot actually guarantee Ukraine’s security by pledging to do so, given our sensible refusal to risk nuclear war on its behalf in the past few years while it was under attack. No U.S. commitment will be credible.
“Security guarantees, even the phony sort that obligates very little, are dangerous. They threaten to create a false sense of security for Ukraine that distracts from what it really needs, which is the ability to inflict heavy costs on Russia in defensive warfare. And in the off-chance they are taken seriously, they might enmesh American forces in a war where vital U.S. interests are lacking, Russian commitment greater, and nuclear war possible.”
From Jennifer Kavanagh, Director of Military Analysis at Defense Priorities:
“Continued discussion about U.S. and European security guarantees for Ukraine—regardless of the form and details—are an exercise in fantasy. Most importantly, Russia has already made it clear that it will reject any arrangement that would have NATO-member states deploying forces into Ukraine after the war. It is also nearly impossible to believe that after three years of fighting to prevent Ukraine’s integration with the West, Putin would accept anything approaching an Article 5-style relationship between Ukraine, the United States, and Europe.
“Rather than accept these terms, Putin will keep fighting, until Ukraine’s frontline collapses and it is forced into a deal worse than what is on the table today. Time is not on Ukraine’s side and continued talk of security guarantees denies reality and will harm Ukraine, not help it.
“Putin’s supposed acceptance of ‘security guarantees’ for Ukraine most likely represents not a new concession, but rather a return to the proposal made in Istanbul in 2022. This model would have made Russia one of several guarantors of Ukraine’s neutrality, with a veto over any military intervention to help defend the country should it be attacked. Ukraine is unlikely to accept a plan that puts its security in the hands of its aggressor.
“Most important, however, is that any sort of security commitment from the United States to Ukraine is not in U.S. interests. The United States has no real stake in the outcome of the Ukraine war or in Ukraine’s long-term future security, and has made this abundantly clear by declining to send forces to Ukraine when the country has been attacked twice in the past. Not only would this past refusal undermine any future commitment made by the United States to Ukraine, but an overburdened U.S. military simply cannot take on more global responsibilities without compromising higher priorities, at home and in Asia.
“Ukraine’s best option has and will always be armed neutrality which would leave it without security guarantees but armed to defend itself. This would not be a surrender of sovereignty but would leave Ukraine’s security where it belongs—in its own hands. Ukraine can achieve the required defensive posture with modest Western assistance in a limited number of areas, though Kyiv can likely take responsibility for its own defense production in the medium term.
“Fixating on security guarantees won’t help bring peace or provide Ukraine the protection it needs. It will, however, prolong the war and delay a final settlement—an outcome that hurts everyone involved.”
Authors
Events on Ukraine-Russia
