Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, the outgoing Chief of the Defence Staff of the UK, discussed post-war security guarantees for Ukraine in a final interview. He revealed a common position among allies to support a ceasefire and a just peace, with discussions focused on providing security guarantees similar to NATO Article 5. Radakin confirmed that the UK and France are prepared to deploy troops in Ukraine as part of these guarantees, with a commitment to long-term support and continued efforts to rebuild Ukraine’s forces. He emphasized the devastating impact of the war on Russia and expressed confidence in Ukraine’s victory, envisioning a future of peace and prosperity for the nation.
Read More
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has stated that China has aided Russia during the war, making it ineligible to be a security guarantor in a future peace deal. Zelenskyy cited China’s failure to prevent the war and its support for Russia, including opening the drone market. Despite China’s calls for a peaceful resolution, its economic support for Russia has damaged its neutral standing with Ukraine and Western leaders. This stance suggests China will be excluded from the peace process, and security guarantors should be limited to countries that have supported Kyiv since the 2022 invasion.
Read More
Rutte pledges NATO security for Ukraine, and this commitment immediately sparks a flurry of thoughts and considerations. It’s a statement that echoes through the corridors of power, promising a future where Ukraine is shielded from further aggression. But the devil, as they say, is in the details. Is it a genuine commitment, or just a carefully crafted diplomatic phrase? The very mention of such a guarantee elicits skepticism. After all, the Budapest Memorandum, which supposedly provided security assurances, ultimately proved inadequate. A piece of paper, no matter how well-intentioned, is easily disregarded by a determined aggressor.
The true test of any security guarantee is its teeth, and the most formidable teeth belong to NATO’s Article 5.… Continue reading
Russia has stated it will only accept collective security guarantees for Ukraine if they are negotiated with its participation and on an equal basis with countries like China, the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. This stance rejects the idea of Western allies developing a plan to protect Ukraine without Moscow’s involvement, as this is viewed as a “road to nowhere”. Lavrov’s comments also reiterated a previous demand for a unanimous clause requiring Russian approval for any security guarantees, hindering progress towards a potential peace deal. Furthermore, Lavrov’s remarks and criticism of European officials indicate the Kremlin’s continued unwillingness to negotiate in good faith.
Read More
An advisor to Donald Trump indicated the potential deployment of US troops to Ukraine as part of future security guarantees after the conflict ends. This possibility arose from discussions during an August meeting in Alaska, where Kremlin leader Vladimir Putin allegedly agreed to US and European allies providing Ukraine with security guarantees. While another advisor cautioned against prematurely discussing specifics, the implication is that both Ukraine and Russia will need to make concessions. However, Russia previously opposed the stationing of NATO troops in Ukraine.
Read More
The Coalition of the Willing convened to express unwavering support for Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty, condemning any alteration of borders by force. President Zelensky announced that the coalition agreed key issues must be resolved with Ukrainian, U.S., and Russian involvement. Discussions also encompassed potential security guarantees involving land, air, and sea protection, alongside a fair and effective peace agreement. These developments occurred following a meeting in Brussels, setting the stage for Zelensky’s upcoming meeting with U.S. President Trump.
Read More
Following a video call with various world leaders, including U.S. President Donald Trump, French President Emmanuel Macron stated the U.S. is prepared to offer security guarantees to Ukraine post-war, though not through NATO membership, a key point for Russia. This stance from Trump was communicated just before his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska. A joint statement from Macron, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, reaffirmed readiness to provide security guarantees to Ukraine and stated that Russia should not hold veto power over Ukraine’s potential EU and NATO membership. Territorial discussions will involve Zelensky, which Trump supports.
Read More
Meloni’s proposal to offer Ukraine NATO security guarantees without full membership is a fascinating development in the ongoing conflict. It presents a potential solution to the impasse surrounding Ukraine’s NATO aspirations, an impasse fueled by both the reluctance of some NATO members and the strategic concerns of Russia. The idea essentially suggests extending the Article 5 collective defense clause to Ukraine, providing a strong security umbrella without requiring the complexities and potential risks of full membership.
This approach attempts to address concerns of those who oppose Ukraine’s full membership, citing the potential for direct conflict with Russia. By providing a robust security guarantee without formal membership, it aims to alleviate those anxieties while simultaneously providing Ukraine with the much-needed protection it desperately seeks.… Continue reading
Following a meeting with US Vice President JD Vance at the Munich Security Conference, President Zelenskyy reiterated Ukraine’s need for security guarantees and a joint US-Ukrainian peace plan before engaging in talks with Putin. While a minerals deal with the US remains under negotiation, Zelenskyy successfully slowed the momentum toward immediate talks with Putin, emphasizing the need for Ukrainian involvement in any peace negotiations. Strong European support and assurances from key Trump administration figures helped alleviate concerns over unilateral concessions to Russia. The discussions concluded with an agreement for future talks, suggesting a more collaborative, measured approach to peace negotiations.
Read More
Zelenskiy’s rejection of a proposed US minerals deal stems from a fundamental lack of security guarantees for Ukraine. The deal, as currently drafted, fails to adequately protect Ukraine from further Russian aggression, leaving the country vulnerable despite the significant mineral concessions offered. This perceived inadequacy renders the agreement unacceptable.
The proposed exchange—billions of dollars worth of Ukrainian mineral rights for unspecified US support—is viewed as heavily unbalanced. This imbalance is compounded by the perception that the financial aid already provided by the US primarily benefited US corporations rather than directly supporting Ukraine’s defense. The lack of tangible protection in return for such substantial concessions fuels distrust and makes the deal seem more like exploitation than equitable partnership.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood