NATO Virtual Meeting for Ukrainian Security Guarantees Backfires

Peloni:  This is very unfortunate.

Stephen Bryen | Weapons & Strategy | Aug 21, 2025

Image via Youtube [Cropped]

The Trump administration made a massive political blunder on August 20th in its pursuit of a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. The blunder centered on a “virtual” meeting led by NATO.

Prior to that meeting, Trump had promised the Russians that any deal would rule out Ukraine’s NATO membership. Apparently the Russians read Trump’s assurance to include no NATO peacekeepers. That was a mistake.

The administration did not consult with the Russians ahead of the NATO parlay.

The NATO-led meeting was intended to lay out military options to meet Ukraine’s request for security guarantees. The discussion apparently considered different views on what a security guarantee would actually look like: would it, for example, include troops and if so, how many, where would they be based in Ukraine and what role would they perform? Stories are around that some countries, the British and French in one version, the British, Germans and Poles in another (unlikely option), would actually put boots on the ground in Ukraine, although British sources insist that its troops would not be on the front line but “far back” from the action. President Trump says that the US won’t send any troops, but will support a security guarantee for Ukraine with US aircraft, presumably mainly spy aircraft (which anyway the US is regularly doing). But President Trump has also touted US air superiority against Russia, suggesting that the US air patrols might well include fighter aircraft such as the F-35. Would these aircraft operate from Ukrainian soil or from bases in Poland and Romania, for example?

The virtual meeting included the defense chiefs from all 32 NATO member countries. The meeting was overseen by Italian Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, the chair of NATO’s Military Committee.

The new Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) and leader of U.S. European Command, U.S. General Alexus Grynkewich, delivered his first briefing to the virtual meeting. Also attending was General Dan Caine who is Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Russia’s reaction came quickly and rejected foreign participation in security guarantees for Ukraine. Speaking about the possibility of foreign troops being deployed on Ukrainian territory, Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov said that Moscow has always viewed this as unacceptable. “And I hope they understand that this would be absolutely unacceptable for Russia and for all sensible political forces in Europe,” Lavrov said.” He went on to say that such proposals are a “road to nowhere.”

It is hard to be sure what led the Trump administration to believe that the Russians would accept NATO states providing security for Ukraine. The very high level of US participation under the NATO banner creates a significant roadblock to a deal on Ukraine.

There also is emerging pushback on any peace deal that involves Ukraine surrendering all or part of Donbas. In a story on August 21st, the conservative Washington Times in a front-page story (print edition) suggesting any deal was dangerous. “The ugly truth behind any deal that would cede a chunk of Ukraine’s Donbas region to Moscow is that it could immediately strengthen the Russian military, providing a major win for one of America’s leading adversaries in an era of great power competition.

“In such a scenario, Ukraine would lose some of its most heavily fortified defensive positions. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s generals would seek to deepen their substantial footprint in the strategically vital theater with new military bases. The Russian navy could gain even greater control over the Black Sea. The Russian government and its armed forces could take de facto ownership of the significant mineral deposits underground in eastern Ukraine.”

The Washington Times story goes on to quote a number of think tanks including the Institute for the Study of War which has been strongly pro-Ukraine for some time.

While the diplomatic process continues, problems are mounting for Trump’s peace initiative for Ukraine.

 

August 22, 2025 | 8 Comments »

Leave a Reply

8 Comments / 8 Comments

  1. AI Overview

    +8
    Russia has not issued a general apology for all damage caused to Jewish sites in Ukraine during the ongoing conflict.
    While there was a reported apology from Russian President Vladimir Putin to then-Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett in May 2022, this was specifically in response to controversial comments made by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov regarding Adolf Hitler and accusations of antisemitism.
    However, the war has resulted in damage to numerous cultural heritage sites in Ukraine, including those with Jewish significance like the Babyn Yar Holocaust Memorial and the Drobitsky Yar Holocaust Memorial, according to UNESCO and other sources. Ukrainian and international organizations have condemned these acts and called for the protection of cultural heritage during the conflict.

  2. So many Jewish sites have been bombed by Russian drones – 4 this month alone including a rabbi’s car and another rabbi’s house- that I’m starting to wonder if it’s a coincidence.

    Russian missile hits Jewish cemetery in Ukraine, causing severe damage to tombstones
    Russian missile hits Jewish cemetery in Pervomaisk in southeastern Ukraine, where well-known rabbis are buried, causing severe damage to the tombstones…Rabbi Meir Stambler, chairman of the Jewish communities in Ukraine, said: “This is the fourth attack on the Jewish community in Ukraine in a month. As you may recall, just last week the synagogue in Odessa was hit, about three weeks ago the house of Rabbi Moshe Weber, a Chabad emissary, was hit in Dnipro, and a few days earlier the car of Rabbi Yossi Wolf, the rabbi of Kherson, was hit by a direct hit from a drone. Thank God, in all the cases I mentioned, by great miracles, there were no physical injuries. It is necessary to put an end to Russian terrorism, which is causing loss of life and great damage throughout Ukraine. We pray for peace and redemption.”
    Israel National News
    Israel National News
    Aug 19, 2025 at 6:43 PM (GMT+3)

    https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/413532

    AI Overview

    +8
    There is no single, definitive number for how many Jewish sites have been bombed in Ukraine by Russia, but multiple reports and organizations have documented numerous attacks on Jewish heritage sites, synagogues, and cemeteries since the full-scale invasion began in 2022. Organizations like the American Jewish Committee have recorded dozens of such incidents, highlighting that the true number is likely higher due to ongoing documentation challenges and a vast number of sites potentially affected.
    Examples of attacks on Jewish sites:
    Babi Yar Memorial:
    The site of a mass shooting of Jews and other victims by the Nazis was struck by Russian missiles in March 2022, damaging its memorial complex.
    Synagogues and Jewish Centers:
    Multiple synagogues and Jewish community centers have been damaged or destroyed by Russian shelling and missile strikes across Ukraine, including in cities like Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Dnipro.
    Cemeteries:
    Historic Jewish cemeteries have been desecrated and damaged by Russian forces.
    Challenges in counting:
    Ongoing Conflict:
    The conflict is still active, making comprehensive documentation difficult.
    Vast Number of Sites:
    Ukraine has a large number of historically significant Jewish sites, including thousands of cemeteries and synagogues.
    Varying Levels of Damage:
    Some sites may be damaged to varying degrees, complicating the process of counting and classification.
    Sources: Reports by the American Jewish Committee (AJC), News articles and statements from Jewish organizations, and Official Ukrainian government sources.

  3. The biggest threat is that Turkey a NATO member, gets into a fight with Israel which they are spoiling to do, and NATO is compelled to come save their swarthy skins.

    Does there exist, a mechanism to remove a member in bad standing, bad faith such as Turkey?

    • @ Donaldo

      Does there exist, a mechanism to remove a member in bad standing, bad faith such as Turkey?

      It would require support if all Nato members including Turkey…so no, there is no such mechanism.

      • AI Overview
        +4
        No, Israel is not a member of NATO, but it is a significant partner through initiatives like the Mediterranean Dialogue and has the status of a Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA) with the United States. While Israel cooperates with NATO on security matters, it does not meet the geographic requirements for full membership, as NATO’s founding treaty specifies that any invited state must be a European country.
        Why Israel is not a member:
        Geography:
        Israel is located in the Middle East, not Europe, and therefore does not qualify for membership under the current wording of the North Atlantic Treaty.
        Territorial Conflicts:
        NATO requires its members to resolve any ongoing territorial disputes to avoid dragging the alliance into a war.
        How Israel partners with NATO:
        Mediterranean Dialogue:
        Israel is one of the non-NATO countries participating in NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue, a partnership focused on regional security.
        Major Non-NATO Ally:
        The United States designated Israel as a Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA) in 1987, allowing for cooperation in areas like technology and counterterrorism.
        Permanent Mission:
        Israel established a permanent and official mission to NATO headquarters in 2017, further solidifying its cooperative relationship with the alliance.

    • AI Overview

      +13
      If a NATO member attacks a Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA), the primary response mechanism of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty does not apply, as Article 5 is a commitment of collective defense only among NATO member states. Instead, each NATO member would individually decide how to respond, potentially through political consultation under Article 4 of the treaty, offering security assistance, or other measures, but without a formal obligation for all allies to take collective military action.
      Why Article 5 Doesn’t Apply
      Collective Defense Focus:
      Article 5 of the Washington Treaty is the cornerstone of NATO, stating that an armed attack against one member is considered an attack against all members. This commitment is strictly for NATO members.
      Specific to NATO Allies:
      A Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA) is a country designated by the U.S. to have strategic ties with the U.S. Armed Forces, but it does not have the same collective defense pact as a NATO member.
      Potential Responses by NATO Members
      Consultation (Article 4):
      NATO Allies may consult on the situation under Article 4 of the Washington Treaty, which allows members to discuss security matters of common interest.
      Individual Action:
      Each NATO member has the autonomy to determine the “such action as it deems necessary,” which could include:
      Providing military aid and training to the attacked MNNA, similar to how NATO countries support Ukraine.
      Imposing diplomatic or economic sanctions.
      Offering other forms of security assistance or cooperation.
      No Obligation for Collective Defense:
      There is no NATO-wide obligation for military intervention or collective defense as there would be if an attack were against another NATO member.
      Key Distinction
      The crucial difference is that a NATO member attacking an MNNA does not trigger the automatic, collective military response outlined in NATO’s Article 5. The response would depend on the individual decisions of each NATO member, their relationship with the MNNA, and their assessment of the situation, rather than a treaty-bound collective obligation.

  5. Putin has made it clear even before 2022 that having NATO on his border was a red line. In fact, the Minsk Agreement, signed on 5 September 2014, promised that NATO would not expand “one inch east” from member countries on that date. Now Trump and the EU rabble want to put NATO boots on the ground and NATO fighter jets in the air right next door to Russian territory? Of course that proposal is dead on arrival. Putin is nothing if not consistent. Others in the West, including Trump, want to weasel around their prior agreements, but Putin will have none of it. Unless NATO backs off, the war will continue and Russia will slowly gain more and more territory until the entire of Ukraine is his.