The war in Ukraine is approaching its fourth year, and the search for a peace settlement has taken a surprising turn. President Donald Trump, after his recent summit with Vladimir Putin in Alaska, is now floating the idea of granting Ukraine Article 5-like protections outside of NATO. These protections would mimic the alliance’s most important pledge — collective defense — without formally admitting Ukraine into NATO itself.
The proposal comes as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy travels to Washington for a critical White House meeting. Flanked by top European leaders, Zelenskyy is expected to press for concrete guarantees that his country will not be left vulnerable if negotiations with Russia move forward.
The Current Situation on the Ground
Ukraine remains under immense pressure. Russian forces control parts of the Donbas region and continue offensive operations along multiple fronts. Zelenskyy has made it clear that no Ukrainian territory will be surrendered. “The constitution of Ukraine makes it impossible to give up territory or trade land,” he said during a press conference in Brussels. He added that Russia’s attempts to seize Donbas had failed for more than a decade and emphasized that only direct talks between Kyiv and Moscow could address territorial questions.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen backed him up, stating, “With regards to any territorial questions in Ukraine, our position is clear: international borders cannot be changed by force. These are decisions to be made by Ukraine and Ukraine alone, and these decisions cannot be taken without Ukraine at the table.”
Despite these strong positions, Ukraine is exhausted. Its economy is battered, its military stretched thin, and its people weary of war. It is in this fragile context that Trump has introduced his new idea.
What Article 5 Means
NATO’s Article 5 is the alliance’s most important clause. It declares that “if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members.” This means that an attack on one country requires a collective response from all. For Ukraine, Article 5 membership has long been seen as the ultimate security guarantee against Russia.
Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff revealed that Putin had, for the first time, signaled openness to a parallel arrangement. “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. He called it “game-changing” and said it was “the first time we had ever heard the Russians agree to that.”
Why Zelenskyy Welcomed the Idea
Zelenskyy quickly embraced the suggestion, describing it as a breakthrough. “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,” he said in Brussels. He later added that while the details were still vague, the principle of American and European support was critical. “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.”
For Zelenskyy, this offer could provide political cover to enter negotiations with Russia. It would assure his people that Ukraine’s future would not be left unprotected, even if full NATO membership remains out of reach.
Putin’s Position on Ukraine and NATO
Since the beginning of the conflict, Putin has made his opposition to Ukraine’s NATO membership clear. One of Russia’s core demands has been that Kyiv never join the alliance. He has also insisted on international recognition of Russia’s annexations, including Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine. After the Alaska summit, Putin warned that Kyiv and European capitals must not “create obstacles” or try to derail progress “through provocation or behind-the-scenes intrigue.”
Putin’s overriding concern has always been the safety of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet in Crimea. This warm-water base is Russia’s only major year-round naval outlet, and it explains much of Moscow’s strategy. From that perspective, offering Ukraine NATO-style protections by another name could be seen as no different than granting NATO membership itself.
Despite Witkoff’s optimism, top U.S. officials have been cautious. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stressed that “we’re still a long ways off” from a peace deal. “We made progress in the sense that we identified potential areas of agreement, but there remain some big areas of disagreement,” Rubio said. He added, “We’re not at the precipice of a peace agreement, we’re not at the edge of one, but I do think progress was made towards one.”
Trump himself has said that Zelenskyy should consider Putin’s offers because “Russia is a very big power” and Ukraine is not. Yet Rubio downplayed speculation that Trump would push Ukraine to give up land, saying, “The president has said that in terms of territories, these are things that Zelenskyy is going to have to decide on. All the president is trying to do here is narrow down the open issues.”
Some European leaders see this as a turning point. French President Emmanuel Macron argued that security guarantees must be paired with a stronger Ukrainian military. “We need a credible format for the Ukrainian army, that’s the first point, and say — we Europeans and Americans — how we’ll train them, equip them, and finance this effort in the long-term.” He also floated the idea of an allied force stationed in Ukraine away from the front lines to discourage future Russian aggression.
Von der Leyen was equally supportive, saying, “We welcome President Trump’s willingness to contribute to Article 5-like security guarantees for Ukraine. And the coalition of the willing, including the European Union, is ready to do its share.”
Optimists argue that this arrangement could give Ukraine the bulk of NATO’s benefits without forcing Moscow to swallow formal NATO membership. They see it as a diplomatic compromise that might finally bring the war to an end.
Pessimistic Views
Others are far less hopeful. Critics point out that Article 5-like protections amount to NATO membership in everything but name, and Putin will never truly accept it. They also warn that Ukraine remains plagued by corruption and weak governance, making it a poor candidate for sweeping defense guarantees. Neil Melvin of the Royal United Services Institute put it bluntly: “After the Alaska summit, the idea of a ceasefire appears all-but-abandoned, with the narrative shifting toward Putin’s agenda of ensuring Ukraine does not join NATO or even the EU.”
Pessimists also note the risks to the West. By granting Ukraine such guarantees, the U.S. and Europe could find themselves locked into defending a country indefinitely, without the legal and institutional structure that NATO provides. This, they argue, is the worst of both worlds: an open-ended commitment with none of NATO’s safeguards.
Why This Is a Dangerous Path
The fundamental problem is that Putin’s primary strategic goal has always been control of Crimea and protection of the Black Sea Fleet. Any security guarantee that resembles NATO membership — even if dressed in different language — cuts against that goal. For the West, it raises the danger of inheriting Ukraine’s corruption and instability as a permanent liability.
In short, Trump’s proposal may sound like a clever compromise, but in practice it risks deepening the conflict rather than resolving it. It gives Ukraine a promise that Russia will likely reject, and it places heavy obligations on the United States and Europe without addressing the root causes of the war.
What looks like a bold idea on paper may prove to be a very bad line of thought in reality.
