By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a conversation following discussions between former US President Donald Trump and the Kremlin, US and European officials explored potential security guarantees for Ukraine, mirroring the principles of NATO’s Article 5. Sources indicate that these “Article 5-style” guarantees, intended as part of a possible peace agreement, would not involve NATO itself. While specific details remain undisclosed, the concept originated from the US as a component of security assurances purportedly agreed upon with the Russian president. This information was confirmed by sources from both CNN and Ukrainska Pravda.
Read the original article here
So, the news is swirling that Trump, and perhaps Putin, are floating the idea of “Article 5-type” security guarantees for Ukraine. Let’s break this down, shall we?
First off, let’s be clear: “Article 5” in the NATO context is a big deal. It essentially says that an attack on one member is an attack on all. It’s a cornerstone of collective defense and a major deterrent. But this proposed agreement? Well, it seems like it’s being envisioned outside of NATO, with the US and Russia potentially at the table.
The underlying premise is that the US would provide promised assistance in case of being attacked. Now, on paper, that sounds good. The problem is, a paper guarantee is only as good as the people signing it. And that’s where the potential pitfalls come into play. Trump’s history of unpredictable statements and prioritizing his own interests over alliances raises serious questions about the credibility of any such promise.
One of the strongest criticisms of this idea is, why should anyone trust this after the Budapest Memorandum? Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for security assurances from Russia, the US, and the UK. Those assurances didn’t prevent Russia from invading. This is precisely the elephant in the room, isn’t it? The memory of broken promises casts a long shadow.
Then there’s the question of what these “Article 5-type” guarantees would actually look like. Would the US be obliged to send troops? Financial aid? Or would it be more of a vague promise of support? The details, as they always do, will be crucial. It’s very difficult to take this seriously without seeing them.
And this is where it gets really tricky. Many people seem to believe that this would not be a credible promise, because in the past Trump has publicly questioned the value of defending allies, even within NATO. He’s mused about not wanting to defend certain countries, and that kind of sentiment, if it’s genuine, undermines any guarantee.
The cynics are out in force. It’s easy to see why. The concern is that this is a deal that benefits Russia, allowing them to get what they want while putting Ukraine in a difficult position. Will this agreement make Ukraine safer? The skepticism is understandable. Given the lack of trust, this security would probably be limited and weak.
The very fact that Putin and Trump might agree on something like this raises serious eyebrows. Putin is seen by many as a master manipulator, and there’s worry Trump could be getting played. Some speculate that Putin might trust Trump, which says a lot about how much he distrusts others.
Some are saying the only real guarantee for Ukraine is the ability to defend itself. They suggest providing Ukraine with the weapons it needs to deter or repel any further aggression.
One of the most important concerns is what the agreement actually says. Would the US have the choice to sit out? It’s a fair concern that this could potentially take a lot of pressure off of the US.
The context here is also important. Many point out that this proposed deal could be a part of a larger political maneuver, perhaps even a distraction from other controversies.
In the end, the credibility of this “Article 5-type” agreement would rest entirely on the actions of the US, and its commitment to the Ukrainian people, and the details of the agreement, of course. And given Trump’s history, that’s a big question mark.