SAEDNEWS: Donald Trump, in his recent meeting with Volodymyr Zelensky, announced that if a peace agreement with Russia is reached, the United States will take responsibility for guaranteeing Ukraine’s security.
According to Saed News, quoting Reuters, Donald Trump, former President of the United States and Republican candidate for the 2024 elections, stated in a conversation with Volodymyr Zelensky, President of Ukraine, that the U.S. would assume the role of guaranteeing Ukraine’s security if a peace agreement is achieved between Kyiv and Moscow. This stance, amid a protracted war entering its third year and at a time when America’s political fate can directly affect the future of this war, has raised many questions at the international level. How Trump intends to guarantee Ukraine’s security, and whether this promise is more than an electoral tool, is a matter of debate both in the West and the East.
This is not the first time Trump has commented on the Ukraine war. During his election campaign, he repeatedly claimed that if he returned to the White House, he could stop the war within 24 hours. This claim has been interpreted by his supporters as a sign of his negotiation skills and bargaining power, while critics have ridiculed it as an oversimplification and even a disregard for Europe’s geopolitical complexities. The promise to guarantee Ukraine’s security in a peace agreement could be seen as an extension of the same electoral narrative; a narrative built less on the realities of the battlefield and more on showcasing Trump’s leadership ability and his image as a “great dealmaker.”
On the other side of the story, Zelensky also knows well that the outcome of the U.S. presidential election could have the most vital impact on the fate of his country. Western financial and military aid, especially from the United States, has been the main pillar of Ukraine’s resistance against Russia. Any change in this trend would quickly alter the balance of power on the battlefield. From this perspective, Zelensky’s cautious reception of Trump’s statements should not be interpreted as full trust in his promises, but rather as part of Ukraine’s pragmatic policy to maintain U.S. support—regardless of which party is in power.
The security dimensions of Trump’s promise are also questionable. What does it mean to guarantee the security of a country outside traditional structures such as NATO? Does Trump intend to design a local version of bilateral security treaties between the U.S. and some Asian countries—like South Korea or Japan—for Ukraine? Or is he more inclined toward a limited agreement in which Washington commits to defensive assistance but refrains from direct war with Russia? Clear answers to these questions are not evident in Trump’s statements, and this ambiguity has led political analysts to largely interpret his remarks as part of a publicity maneuver.
Reactions in Europe to Trump’s promise have been mixed. On one hand, some European governments, particularly in Eastern Europe, welcome any additional U.S. security commitment. They understand well that without a guaranteed active presence of Washington, deterrence against Russia will be fragile. On the other hand, some Western European countries view Trump’s statements with skepticism. His previous presidency showed that he repeatedly questioned NATO and even threatened that, if Europe did not increase its defense spending, the U.S. might shirk its commitments. How, then, can one believe that this same individual, if returned to power, would accept a long-term security commitment to Ukraine?
Within the United States, Trump’s promise has also had multiple political repercussions. More traditional Republicans, who have consistently emphasized the policy of power and confronting Russia, have welcomed this stance as a sign of Trump’s seriousness in managing global crises. However, the “America First” faction among Trump’s supporters still believes that the U.S. should not spend its resources and capital in a war far from its borders. From this perspective, Trump’s promise can be interpreted as an attempt to balance the two factions within the Republican Party; a balance whose durability is still uncertain.
From Russia’s perspective, Trump’s statements carry contradictory messages. The Kremlin knows that Trump has repeatedly criticized the continuation of endless aid to Ukraine, which has created a perception in Moscow that his return to power might provide breathing space for Russia. However, when Trump speaks of guaranteeing Ukraine’s security, he also sends the clear message that the compromise he seeks does not necessarily mean a complete withdrawal of the U.S. from the European stage. In fact, the Kremlin must choose between two conflicting options: either hope that Trump will actually reduce aid in practice, or fear that he will consolidate the U.S. presence in Russia’s backyard with a new initiative.
The economic dimensions of the issue should also not be overlooked. One of Trump’s main criticisms of Joe Biden’s policy is the huge volume of financial aid to Ukraine. Trump claims that this money could be spent on U.S. infrastructure and domestic needs. At the same time, the promise to guarantee Ukraine’s security means that Trump cannot completely shirk these expenses. He must at least plan in a way that a portion of military and financial resources continues to be allocated to Kyiv. This contradiction between the “America First” slogan and foreign security commitments could become one of the main challenges of a potential Trump administration.
Public opinion in Ukraine also lacks a unified view regarding Trump’s promise. Some Ukrainian citizens, tired of the ongoing war, view any talk of peace and an end to the war positively, even if expressed by a controversial politician like Trump. Conversely, nationalists and army forces, who have experienced the bitter reality of temporary retreats and external pressures for compromise, regard these promises with skepticism. They fear that the peace agreement Trump refers to may, in practice, mean accepting the occupation of parts of Ukraine by Russia.
Looking at history, security promises by major powers to smaller countries have always had two different fates. In some cases, such as Japan and South Korea, these guarantees became stable security structures that lasted for decades. In other cases, such as Afghanistan, U.S. commitments quickly faded with changing political conditions. Ukraine today is at a sensitive point where it cannot rely solely on verbal promises; it requires concrete mechanisms and legally binding frameworks to ensure its security.
Ultimately, Trump’s statements should be viewed more in the context of his electoral campaign and domestic political calculations than as a precise operational plan. He knows that the Ukraine issue will become one of the main lines of debate and confrontation with Biden. Therefore, by proposing ideas such as a “quick peace agreement” or “guaranteeing Ukraine’s security,” he aims both to present himself as a pragmatic politician and to attract war-weary voters exhausted by foreign expenditures.
Nevertheless, even if Trump returns to the White House, the complexities of the battlefield, conflicting interests of global powers, and Ukraine’s internal resistance will not allow any agreement to be achieved easily or quickly. Guaranteeing Ukraine’s security not only requires heavy financial and military commitments but also entails accepting a historical responsibility regarding the balance of power in Europe. Is Trump willing to pay such a price? Or is his promise merely an electoral slogan that will be forgotten once the debates end? Only the future can provide a clear answer to this question.
