There is no doubt that the summit between US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in Alaska on August 18, 2025, was historic and carried many implications, including the manner and timing of the reception, suggesting that the content and course of conflicts remain governed by the balance of power between the conflicting parties, as well as the continued conviction of major powers that diplomacy continues to play an important role regardless of the intensity of conflicts. It is true that the summit did not result in an immediate settlement or an end to the war in Ukraine, but it laid the foundation for serious negotiations, away from the media messages exchanged between Russia and Ukraine over the past three years, and the statements made by European parties and other international powers.

Before delving into the issue of security guarantees, I believe there are three reasons that explain the US eagerness to end this war. First, reaching an understanding with Russia on the Ukrainian issue will have a positive impact on other areas of US-Russian competition, especially in regions where the US is rumored to be in retreat. Second, Trump’s pledge to voters that he would end the war, and his view that one of his achievements during the past months of his second term has been to end six wars. Third, the continuation of the war will lead to further loss of Ukrainian territory without direct intervention by NATO NATO on Ukrainian soil, which would threaten European security and raise questions about the usefulness of NATO as a security umbrella for European countries, which have occasionally expressed a desire to find a European security alternative.

Talking about security guarantees requires analyzing their nature, basis, and impact. In terms of the nature of these guarantees, what Ukraine wants is to ensure that war does not happen again, by deploying Western forces that are prepared to respond, amounting to a commitment on the part of Western countries similar to Article 5 of the NATO Charter, which states that an attack on one member state is an attack on the entire alliance, requiring a collective response, and that the source of these guarantees should be the alliance countries. It believes that this will have a deterrent effect against any future threats, but what Russia wants is to ensure that Ukraine does not become a nuclear state and does not join NATO. This is the main reason for the outbreak of the war in the first place, as Russia wants to maintain a buffer zone (Ukraine) with NATO’s eastern border and receive guarantees from the Security Council. Russia believes that the effect of these guarantees achieves the concept of “balance of power” within the conflict with NATO, which has always kept its doors wide open to any former Soviet republics wishing to join. Russia accepted this for smaller countries such as the Baltic states, but it viewed Ukraine’s membership as a red line that the alliance must not cross.

It is natural that there is a gap between the positions of the two sides, as the issue is linked to the national security of each and their vision of that security. The involvement of other parties such as NATO and the European Union further complicates the matter, especially in light of two important points: First, regardless of the expected security guarantees, official US statements have repeatedly stated that there will be no US troops on the ground in Ukraine. Second, NATO will not provide these guarantees to Ukraine through the alliance as an organization, but rather within a collective framework. In a statement during his visit to the Ukrainian capital Kiev on August 22, 2025, and his meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte confirmed that the security guarantees include two things: First: strengthening the capabilities of the Ukrainian army to deter Russia from launching a new attack in the future; and second: obtaining European and American security guarantees.

Regardless of what agreements and understandings will be reached on this complex issue, the future of European security raises many important questions and controversies, not only for Europe but also for its repercussions in the Middle East, including: Is NATO still the security umbrella for European countries, given that the alliance avoided direct military confrontation with Russia during the Ukrainian crisis and literally adhered to the content of its founding charter? In my opinion, the answer is no, and Europe must work on a future security alternative. It is true that the European Union is essentially a political and economic project, but in order for it to continue, it needs a new security identity, in addition to the Middle East implications. Perhaps the most important of these is: Will conflicts be resolved through a balance of power, whereby ceding territory is the easiest way to end them, regardless of whether this contravenes the rules of international law and sovereignty?

The resolution of the Ukrainian crisis will hold many lessons, not only for many conflict zones around the world, but also for researchers in international crisis management and how power and diplomacy are intertwined in an unprecedented way.

Note: This article has been automatically translated, the full article is available in Arabic.

Dr. Ashraf Mohammed Keshk : Director of Strategic and International Studies Program