Trump is weighing Ukraine’s security guarantees as Putin signals the war will not end

Sunday’s meeting between Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky produced no dramatic announcements, sweeping statements or a signed peace deal. That outcome should surprise no one. After almost four years of war, diplomacy would never produce a single press conference or photo opportunity.

President Trump himself then struck a measured tone, saying, “I think we can get it done,” while acknowledging that the effort “could end badly.” For his part, Zelenskyy described the talks as constructive and serious and stressed that Ukraine remains committed to a just peace that guarantees long-term security. Both statements point to the same reality: the process is underway, but hard decisions lie ahead.

Still, the meeting was important.

‘ONLY TRUMP CAN STOP RUSSIA’: MILLIONS TO BE GONE WITH IRONING WINTER, UKRAINE ENERGY EXECUTIVE WARNS

According to reporting by Reuters and The Wall Street Journal, the goal of the talks between Trump and Zelensky was not to finalize peace, but to close gaps in a development framework – often described as a 20-point plan – before Trump faces direct contact with Russian President Vladimir Putin. That framework emphasizes Ukrainian sovereignty, enforcement mechanisms and security guarantees, while leaving the most sensitive issues – territory and the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant – unresolved.

In other words, diplomacy has entered a more serious phase. Not because peace is imminent, but because exhaustion is universal. Ukraine continues to suffer devastating losses. Russia is bleeding manpower and treasure. Europe is under economic and security pressure. The United States faces increasing global instability, from Eastern Europe to the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific. Fatigue does not guarantee peace, but it does create political space for it.

Cautious optimism is therefore justified. But optimism without realism would be dangerous.

The central question hanging over Sunday’s meeting is not whether a framework exists — it does exist — but whether it is based on a false assumption that still dominates Western thinking: that Vladimir Putin is a rational actor who can be satisfied with partial concessions. The file suggests otherwise.

US officials hail progress in talks to achieve ‘lasting and lasting peace’ between UKRAINE and RUSSIA

Since the invasion began, Putin has responded to compromise with escalation, to restraint with expansion, and to negotiations with sustained force. Even as peace efforts accelerated this week, Russia continued to launch missile and drone attacks across Ukraine – a fact confirmed by the media. Those attacks are not random. They are signals. Either Putin plans to continue the war outright, or he is deliberately shaping the diplomatic climate by force, creating urgency, fear and pressure for Ukrainian concessions.

In both cases, the implication is clear: Putin will not stop unless he is forced to stop – or unless he is given everything he demands.

That reality should sober any discussion of “land for peace.” Territorial concessions dominate headlines because maps are tangible and emotionally charged. But land is not the decisive variable. Security does.

Multiple media outlets have reported that Ukraine is seeking what officials describe as “Article 5-style” security guarantees: binding commitments from the United States and its allies to respond to future Russian aggression. Zelenskyy has even indicated that he is open to ending Ukraine’s NATO membership, if such assurances are credible. That alone underlines how existential this question is for Kiev.

Ukraine has learned the hard way that vague commitments are worthless. The 1994 Budapest Memorandum did not stop Russia. Previous ceasefires have not stopped Russia. Agreements without enforcement did not stop Russia. Any peace that exchanges Ukrainian territory for promises without teeth is not peace – it is a pause before the next attack.

Since the invasion began, Putin has responded to compromise with escalation, to restraint with expansion, and to negotiations with sustained force.

Security guarantees must therefore be specific, automatic and enforceable. Clear triggers. Defined responses. Real consequences. No committees deliberating while missiles fall. No sanctions that require months of political wrangling to get back in order. Reuters has reported that the draft framework under discussion includes monitoring mechanisms and penalties for violations – an encouraging sign if these are seriously implemented.

TRUMP AND ZELENSKYY SAY PEACE DEAL IN UKRAINE BUT ‘NICE ISSUES’ REMAIN AFTER TALKS IN FLORIDA

This is where President Trump’s role becomes decisive.

Trump has an influence that few leaders have, precisely because he is willing to combine pressure with negotiation. He can tighten enforcement of sanctions and conclude circumvention routes that weaken existing measures. He can impose snap-back penalties that trigger immediately upon violation. He can maintain military support sufficient to raise the costs of renewed Russian offensives. And he can only offer a conditional off-ramp – economic aid or diplomatic re-engagement – ​​after compliance has been verified.

The goal is not to convince Putin of Western goodwill. It is to change his cost calculation.

ZELENSKYY ENCOURAGED BY ‘VERY GOOD’ CHRISTMAS CALLS WITH US

A residential building is heavily damaged after a Russian attack on Kiev, Ukraine, on November 25, 2025. (Evgeni Maloletka/AP)

Putin has repeatedly shown that he will be able to absorb pain – economic, military, diplomatic – if he believes that time and fear are on his side. What he has not shown is a willingness to back down in the face of force. Any peace framework that does not take that pattern into account risks collapsing as soon as attention shifts elsewhere.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS ADVICE

Europe needs to keep a close eye. This war is not just about Ukraine. It is a test of whether Europe’s borders can again be changed by force. An arrangement that assumes that Putin can only be “managed” through compromise will not stabilize the continent; it will invite the next crisis. History does not take kindly to illusions of restraint when it comes to expansionist regimes.

The most realistic conclusion from Sunday’s meeting is this: diplomacy has not failed – but it has not yet proven itself either. Coordination between Washington and Kiev is a necessary first step, but not a sufficient step. If President Trump continues to engage with Putin, armed with a unified framework, clear red lines, and credible enforcement tools, then this effort has a chance.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

If that is not the case – if peace is pursued without force, enforcement and clarity – then Sunday’s meeting will be remembered not as the beginning of the end, but as another moment when the West mistook words for power.

Peace remains possible. But only if we abandon the comforting fiction that Vladimir Putin can settle for half-measures — and build an agreement that makes renewed aggression decidedly costly.

CLICK HERE TO ROBERT MAGINNIS