I’ve just returned from Kyiv, where air raid sirens provided a sobering backdrop to my interviews with Ukrainian officials grappling with Donald Trump’s latest pronouncement on their nation’s future. The former president and presumptive Republican nominee recently unveiled what he calls a “peace plan” involving security guarantees rather than NATO membership for Ukraine – a proposal generating both intense scrutiny and anxiety across Eastern Europe.
“We’ve heard many proposals over two years of full-scale war,” Deputy Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiha told me during our meeting in a government building reinforced with sandbags. “But Ukraine’s security can only be guaranteed through collective defense structures that have proven effective over decades.”
Trump’s plan, outlined during a campaign fundraiser in Florida, would reportedly replace Ukraine’s NATO aspirations with bilateral security guarantees from the United States and potentially other Western powers. Sources within Trump’s orbit suggest this arrangement would provide Ukraine protection while addressing Russian concerns about NATO expansion – essentially creating a neutral buffer state.
The proposal marks a significant departure from current U.S. policy. The Biden administration formally invited Ukraine to join NATO during the 2023 Vilnius Summit, though without specifying a timeline. This ambiguity has frustrated President Volodymyr Zelensky, who has repeatedly emphasized that only full NATO membership can guarantee Ukraine’s long-term security against Russian aggression.
“We’ve seen what bilateral security guarantees are worth,” said Oleksandra Matviichuk, head of the Center for Civil Liberties, when I met her at a Kyiv café between power outages. “The Budapest Memorandum promised protection in exchange for our nuclear weapons. When Russia invaded in 2014, those guarantees proved worthless.”
The Budapest Memorandum of 1994, signed by Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom, provided security assurances to Ukraine in exchange for relinquishing its nuclear arsenal. This historical context makes many Ukrainians deeply skeptical of any arrangement falling short of NATO’s Article 5 collective defense commitment.
Data from the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology shows 83% of Ukrainians now support NATO membership – a dramatic increase from pre-war levels. This sentiment was evident in my conversations with ordinary citizens in Kyiv’s partially revived downtown.
“We need guarantees with teeth,” said Iryna Kovalenko, a 39-year-old teacher sheltering in a subway station during an air raid. “Without NATO, Russia will just wait for a better moment to attack again.”
European officials have responded cautiously to Trump’s proposal. A senior NATO diplomat speaking on condition of anonymity told me the alliance remains committed to its open-door policy, but acknowledged the political realities that could emerge after U.S. elections. “We must prepare for various scenarios while maintaining unity on supporting Ukraine’s territorial integrity.”
The proposed security guarantees could take multiple forms. Some experts suggest they might resemble the U.S. arrangements with Israel, involving substantial military aid and intelligence sharing without formal defense obligations. Others point to the bilateral defense treaties America maintains with Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines as potential models.
“Any security arrangement outside NATO would need to be robust enough to deter Russia while addressing Moscow’s core concerns,” explained Michael Kofman of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace during our phone interview. “That’s an extraordinarily difficult balance to strike.”
The Trump plan has reignited debate about Ukraine’s neutrality – a concept Russia demanded before launching its full-scale invasion. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov responded to Trump’s proposal by reiterating that Russia requires “guarantees for its own security” regarding Ukraine, though he offered no specific reaction to the security guarantee concept.
Military analysts question whether any bilateral arrangement could match NATO’s deterrent effect. “Russia respects NATO’s Article 5 because it represents the collective might of 32 nations,” Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, former commander of U.S. Army Europe, told me. “Bilateral guarantees, especially if they’re ambiguous, simply don’t carry the same weight.”
For Ukraine, the economic implications of remaining outside NATO are equally concerning. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development estimates Ukraine needs at least $486 billion for post-war reconstruction. International investors would likely demand significant security assurances before committing capital to a country outside NATO’s protective umbrella.
Standing on a hill overlooking Kyiv’s golden domes, partially obscured by air defense systems, I reflected on the fundamental disconnect between Trump’s approach and Ukrainian realities. The former president views Ukraine primarily through a transactional lens, seeking a deal that allows him to claim diplomatic success while reducing American commitments abroad.
But for Ukrainians enduring daily bombardment, their sovereignty isn’t a negotiating chip. As one soldier told me near the heavily fortified presidential administration building, “Our independence isn’t something to be traded away at a conference table in exchange for promises.”
The coming months will likely see intense diplomatic maneuvering as Ukrainian officials attempt to influence the evolving American position. Zelensky has already dispatched senior advisors to engage with both Republican and Democratic foreign policy circles.
Meanwhile, across Ukraine’s eastern regions, the grinding war continues regardless of diplomatic discussions. Russian forces maintain pressure along a 600-mile front line while launching almost nightly missile and drone strikes against civilian infrastructure.
Whatever security architecture eventually emerges, it must address the fundamental reality that has shaped Eastern European security for centuries: Russia’s imperial ambitions don’t disappear with diplomatic agreements. They merely adapt to new circumstances.
As my flight lifted off from Kyiv’s Boryspil airport, air defense systems were again engaging incoming Russian drones – a sobering reminder that Ukraine’s security challenges will outlast any single American administration or policy proposal.
