With high-stakes summits in Anchorage and Washington, the White House has injected new energy into efforts to end Russia’s brutal assault on Ukraine. But, as the days since have made clear, to achieve a lasting peace this must be the start of a new US commitment to Ukrainian and European security, not the end.
The recent flurry of diplomacy at first appeared to yield progress on two fronts. After meetings on Monday between American, European and Ukrainian leaders, the US agreed to help provide security guarantees for Ukraine as part of a final peace deal. European nations have begun working out what form those assurances will take and what forces they can provide. Separately, talk of a possible bilateral meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and Russian President Vladimir Putin intensified.
So far, however, there are just talks about talks. After rejecting a ceasefire, Russia has continued to press its offensive and bombard civilian areas. And Putin’s subordinates have cast doubt on what kind of Western support for Ukraine he would actually accept. They seem to envision an arrangement similar to the one they proposed during abortive talks in 2022, whereby Russia would be one of several nations involved in providing guarantees, with a veto on whether they could be invoked. European and Ukrainian leaders have already rejected that idea.
At least, the White House no longer seems to expect Zelenskiy to surrender all the territory Putin is demanding — including vital fortifications that Ukrainian forces hold in the eastern Donbas region — as the price of peace. The challenge now is to ensure that whatever emerges from ongoing discussions deters further Russian aggression, secures Ukraine’s survival and protects US interests.
The first and most credible security guarantee will be Ukraine’s own strength. The US must continue to sell Kyiv advanced weapons, with European nations helping to finance the purchases. Europe, in turn, should invest directly in Ukraine’s innovative but cash-starved defense industries. Zelenskiy has proposed selling drones to the US — a reminder that a militarily capable Ukraine can bolster, not drain, Western arsenals.
Should Putin ultimately agree to stop fighting, an external deterrent will still be needed, making clear that European nations and, ultimately, the US will come to Ukraine’s aid if Russia resumes its aggression. “Article 5-like” collective defense pledges would be a good start. European states must also work out a proposal for limited “tripwire” forces on Ukrainian soil. While American boots on the ground aren’t necessary, the US must clearly commit to providing intelligence, logistics — and rapid reinforcement if those allied troops are attacked. Only then will Putin believe that violating a deal risks escalation he cannot control.
This is not charity; it’s hard-headed self-interest. If Ukraine is left with porous, indefensible borders and unreliable allies, no agreement will hold for long. An emboldened Russia would menace NATO’s eastern flank, possibly dragging the US back into a European war just as it’s trying to focus on China. Worse still, forcing Ukraine into a bad bargain because it’s not a “very big power” would send a disastrous signal to Chinese leaders that force works, making a crisis over Taiwan more likely.
Whether Putin is prepared to accept this kind of settlement remains doubtful. Further US economic pressure may be needed to change his calculus. One thing is certain, though: The only peace worth pursuing is one that secures Ukraine’s future while anchoring US and European security. Anything less is a trap.
More From Bloomberg Opinion:
The Editorial Board publishes the views of the editors across a range of national and global affairs.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
About the Author
