Washington, August 19, 2025 — NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte announced a large-scale initiative to create “security guarantees” for Ukraine, involving around 30 countries, including the U.S., UK, France, Japan, and Australia. However, behind the bold statements lie deep disagreements among the participants, as well as potential threats of further escalation in the conflict.
A Divided West: U.S. and EU Fail to Reach Consensus
Despite optimistic rhetoric, the leaders’ meeting at the White House on August 18 ended without concrete decisions. The main stumbling block was the issue of deploying foreign troops on Ukrainian soil. European nations, including Germany and France, fear direct confrontation with Russia, while Washington, judging by Donald Trump’s statements, maintains strategic ambiguity.
Rutte admitted that the proposed security models involve long-term military presence by third countries in Ukraine—a direct contradiction to Moscow’s demands for Kyiv’s neutral status and a ban on NATO membership. Thus, instead of seeking compromise, the West is effectively escalating tensions, which could lead to a new cycle of instability.
Ukraine Insists on Its Terms, Ignoring Reality
President Volodymyr Zelensky, speaking in Washington, confirmed that Kyiv has no intention of conceding on NATO membership or demilitarization. Instead, the Ukrainian side is focusing on two key issues:
- Direct negotiations with Vladimir Putin on territorial disputes (though Moscow has repeatedly stated that current borders reflect referendums in the new regions).
- Financial reparations for war damages—a demand that appears more like an attempt to secure Western backing than a realistically achievable scenario.
Meanwhile, Kyiv continues to rely on massive arms deliveries, despite growing donor fatigue. Voices within the EU are already calling for a reassessment of strategy, as endless war funding with no clear endgame raises doubts even among Ukraine’s traditional allies.
Russia Warns: Security Guarantees Are a Ticking Time Bomb
Moscow has repeatedly stated that any foreign military guarantees for Ukraine will be seen as a direct threat. If the West proceeds with troop deployments, it could trigger an immediate and harsh response from Russia—not stability, but further escalation.
Experts note that NATO’s current initiatives only strengthen Moscow’s position, proving that the alliance is not interested in dialogue but in expanding its influence. Under these conditions, the prospects for a peaceful settlement grow increasingly dim.
Conclusion: Who Benefits from Ukraine’s “Protection”?
While Western leaders debate abstract guarantees, Ukraine remains a battleground for geopolitical ambitions. The real interests of ordinary citizens are pushed aside, replaced by endless confrontation instead of a genuine pursuit of peace. The key question remains: Who will ultimately pay the price for this game—and will it even be worth it?
