Ukraine Seeks Security Guarantees Amid Uncertainty from the US and Europe

The term "security guarantees" has been repeatedly emphasized by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, especially during his intense exchange with US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance at the White House last week. Zelensky continues to raise concerns over how Ukraine can ensure that Russian President Vladimir Putin will honor any potential ceasefire instead of resuming hostilities in the near future. Additionally, he questions how Ukraine can safeguard itself against the aggressive ambitions of its powerful neighbor.

Trump’s Response: A Dismissive Stance on Security Assurances

Trump has shown little interest in Zelensky’s insistence on security commitments. During their Oval Office confrontation, Trump brushed aside the issue, stating, "Security is so easy, that’s about 2% of the problem." His vague remarks on Ukraine’s defense mostly revolved around Europe taking responsibility, suggesting that a US safety net may not be necessary.

"It shouldn't be that hard of a deal to make," Trump added on Monday, shortly before announcing a pause in US military aid to Ukraine. He also hinted that the presence of American businesses operating in Ukraine, particularly in the mining sector, could act as a deterrent to Russian aggression. "I don’t think anybody’s going to play around if we’re there with a lot of workers," he suggested.

US Perspective on Ukraine’s Security Needs

While Trump downplays Ukraine’s need for military assurances, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has a different perspective. Speaking to Fox News, he emphasized the need for a strong deterrent to prevent future Russian aggression. However, he also pointed out that America doesn’t necessarily have to take full responsibility, stating that European nations should contribute to Ukraine’s security.

Other US officials have echoed similar sentiments. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth clarified that European troops stationed in Ukraine would not receive NATO's collective defense protection. Similarly, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz confirmed that Ukraine's security guarantees would largely depend on Europe, not the United States.

Europe’s Hesitation and Calls for a Peacekeeping Force

While France and the UK have expressed openness to participating in a post-war stabilization force, other European countries have been less forthcoming. Outgoing German Chancellor Olaf Scholz admitted that such an effort would require more commitment than many nations are ready for. Meanwhile, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni outright dismissed the idea, stating that deploying Italian troops "has never been on the table."

Some estimates suggest that a full-fledged peacekeeping force would require at least 100,000 troops, a commitment that seems unrealistic for European armies alone. By comparison, the Kosovo peacekeeping mission in 1999 involved 48,000 troops, yet Ukraine is more than 50 times larger.

Challenges of a Ceasefire and Peacekeeping Logistics

For a truce to hold, analysts suggest that a demilitarized zone (DMZ) would need to be established, with both sides withdrawing heavy weaponry at least 40 kilometers (25 miles) from the frontline. Additionally, drone warfare would need to be strictly restricted, and constant monitoring mechanisms would be required.

Security analysts warn that deploying too few troops in the hope that Russia won’t challenge them is a risky approach. If Russian forces were to attack a peacekeeping outpost, it could escalate tensions and even drag NATO countries into conflict with Russia.

Zelensky’s Urgent Plea for Stronger Commitments

During his visit to London, Zelensky once again stressed the need for “specific security guarantees with concrete commitments” to prevent any future Russian aggression. He insists that a strong Ukrainian army, backed by international support, is the best way to deter Russia in the long run.

A realistic security framework, according to experts, would require:

A significant international peacekeeping presence.
US backing for intelligence, logistics, and air defenses.
A modernized and well-equipped Ukrainian army capable of self-defense.

Some analysts believe a combined force of 100,000 peacekeepers alongside a Ukrainian military of 200,000 troops could serve as a sufficient deterrent against further Russian advances. However, European leaders insist that such an effort must have strong US support, which remains uncertain under the current administration.

Russia’s Stance: No Room for Negotiation

Despite discussions about security guarantees, Moscow remains firm on its demands. The Russian Foreign Ministry has stated that any deployment of NATO troops in Ukraine—even under a peacekeeping mission—would be "categorically unacceptable." Official Russian news agencies have even suggested that a 100,000-strong force in Ukraine would be seen as an "occupation."

Putin’s negotiation strategy has always been maximalist—demanding not just territorial concessions but also severe restrictions on Ukraine’s military capabilities. His conditions include:

Recognition of Russian control over four illegally annexed eastern regions.
Demilitarization and neutrality of Ukraine.
A leadership change in Kyiv, with Zelensky’s removal from office.

Putin has repeatedly insisted that Russia will not negotiate with an "illegitimate" Ukrainian government.

The Reality of Russia’s Military Advantage

From Russia’s perspective, the war is going in its favor. The Institute for the Study of War has suggested that Putin’s primary strategy is to exhaust Ukraine’s military capacity by cutting off Western support. If US military aid diminishes, Russia will have little reason to compromise.

With Trump in the White House, the Kremlin sees Ukraine as increasingly isolated, while European nations struggle to fill the security vacuum left by the US.

Europe’s Response: Strengthening Its Own Defense Capabilities

With US commitments uncertain, European leaders are beginning to accelerate defense initiatives. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen recently proposed a €150 billion defense loan fund and up to €800 billion in additional defense spending to help strengthen Ukraine’s military.

The strategy, often referred to as turning Ukraine into a "steel porcupine," aims to fortify the country with enough defensive capabilities to deter future Russian invasions.

A History of Broken Promises

Ukraine has historical reasons to be skeptical of security assurances. The 1994 Budapest Memorandum saw Russia, the UK, and the US pledge to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear arsenal. However, Russia repeatedly violated these agreements, culminating in the 2014 annexation of Crimea and the full-scale invasion in 2022.

Ukraine’s Economy Minister Yulia Svyrydenko recently pointed out that even past ceasefire agreements—such as the 2019 Paris deal—were broken by Russia within weeks.

Conclusion: The Tough Road Ahead for Ukraine

Despite Zelensky’s push for concrete security guarantees, Ukraine’s future remains highly uncertain. Europe is hesitant, the US is divided, and Russia is unwilling to compromise.

The reality is that unless Ukraine receives strong military backing and guarantees, any ceasefire agreement will remain fragile—and history suggests that Russia will only honor agreements that serve its own interests.

China’s Warships Encircle Australia as US Alliances Face Uncertainty

For over three weeks, Chinese warships have been navigating around Australia’s coastline, coming within 200 miles of Sydney and conducting unprecedented live-fire drills alongside New Zealand.

This unexpected military maneuver has raised concerns in both nations, as China's military presence is no longer confined to the South China Sea or Taiwan Strait, where Xi Jinping’s territorial aggression has intensified. Instead, it is now unfolding alarmingly close to Australian shores.

China's Show of Naval Strength Across the Pacific

At the same time, Chinese naval activity near Vietnam and Taiwan has increased, reflecting Beijing’s growing military influence in the Pacific, which regularly unsettles US allies in the region.

Despite international concerns, China remains unapologetic, asserting that its actions are within international law. Chinese state media has even suggested that Western nations should become accustomed to Chinese warships patrolling nearby waters.

Shifting US Commitments Spark Regional Anxiety

Previously, US allies in the Indo-Pacific relied on Washington’s security commitments, but recent geopolitical shifts have shaken that confidence.

Trump’s explosive meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, followed by his decision to halt military aid to Ukraine, has heightened fears in the Pacific.

The Oval Office confrontation has led some nations to wonder: If the US is willing to abandon Ukraine amid Russia’s invasion, would it do the same in Asia if China were to act aggressively?

Trump’s warming ties with Russia and cold approach toward Europe—described by Singapore’s defense minister as a “landlord seeking rent”—have only added to concerns about America’s commitment to its global alliances.

“This raises serious questions about the US’s dedication to regional security,” said Collin Koh, a research fellow at Singapore’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS).

Koh also pointed out that even if the US remains engaged, it may demand significant concessions from its allies in return for continued military support.

Time for US Allies to Reevaluate Security Strategies

For US allies like Australia and New Zealand, experts suggest that now is the time to reevaluate defense budgets and regional security agreements. With Trump’s "America First" policy in play, these nations may need to strengthen ties with other like-minded countries to counterbalance China’s expanding military reach.

Australia Monitors Chinese Military Activity Closely

Australia has made it clear that it is actively tracking China's movements, with its Navy ships and surveillance aircraft providing daily location updates on the Chinese warships.

Defense Minister Richard Marles stated that Australia is analyzing data from these naval activities to determine China’s strategic objectives.

Meanwhile, China’s ambassador to Australia, Xiao Qian, dismissed concerns, stating that China’s naval operations pose no threat to Australia.

“As a major regional power, it is normal for China to send vessels to different areas for various activities,” Xiao told ABC News.

Trump’s Hardline Stance on Defense Spending

While China flexes its military muscle in the Pacific, Trump has been pressuring European allies to increase their defense spending, particularly in support of Ukraine.

Before his tense meeting with Zelensky, Trump had planned to sign a mineral resources agreement with Ukraine, intending for the US to recoup some of the financial aid it had provided since Russia’s invasion. However, the deal was scrapped after their heated exchange, with Trump bluntly telling Zelensky on Truth Social to "come back when he is ready for peace."

By cutting off US military assistance to Ukraine, Trump aimed to push European nations to bear more of the financial and military burden.

Europe Steps Up Defense Efforts

Trump’s strategy appeared to work, as the European Union announced a €150 billion ($158 billion) plan to strengthen military spending and increase military support for Ukraine.

However, critics argue that Trump is prioritizing a peace deal at any cost, disregarding Zelensky’s concerns over whether such an agreement would truly keep Putin in check.

“Trump seems willing to accept peace at any price, even if it’s not sustainable,” said Peter Dean, director of foreign policy and defense at the United States Studies Centre in Sydney.

China’s Military Maneuvers: A Test of US Resolve?

As the US recalibrates its global defense priorities, China’s aggressive naval exercises are putting regional stability to the test.

“China is carving out a sphere of influence in the Pacific, testing how much resistance it will face,” said Drew Thompson, a senior fellow at RSIS Singapore.

Even before Trump’s fallout with Zelensky, the presence of Chinese warships off Australia’s southern coast had already shifted Canberra’s focus toward strengthening AUKUS, its trilateral security alliance with the US and the UK.

AUKUS Under the Microscope Amid US Foreign Policy Shifts

Concerns over Trump’s commitment to AUKUS emerged when a British reporter questioned the US president about the agreement, to which Trump replied, "What does that mean?"

Although the remark was later dismissed as a miscommunication, it fueled speculation about whether AUKUS could withstand shifting US policies.

Australia’s recent $500 million payment toward bolstering America’s submarine production has helped solidify Washington’s support for AUKUS, ensuring that nuclear-powered submarines will eventually be sold to Australia to enhance its Indo-Pacific military presence.

US Allies React to the Oval Office Tensions

Trump’s public spat with Zelensky sent ripples across US allies in the Pacific.

Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba cautiously stated that Japan had "no intention of taking sides" but acknowledged the importance of maintaining US involvement in global security efforts.

“Today’s Ukraine could be tomorrow’s East Asia,” Ishiba warned, emphasizing the need to strengthen regional deterrence.

Japan, which has its own territorial disputes with China in the East China Sea, has raised alarms over increasing Chinese military activity in its surrounding waters.

Similarly, South Korea, another key US ally, refrained from commenting on Trump’s exchange with Zelensky but confirmed that it was closely monitoring US policy shifts regarding Ukraine.

Trump has long demanded that allies like South Korea pay more for US military protection, and in a recent speech, he reiterated that the US is no longer willing to foot the bill for other nations' security.

Taiwan Prepares for an Uncertain Future

In Taiwan, which faces direct threats from China’s military expansion, Defense Minister Wellington Koo sought to reassure the public despite the growing unpredictability in global politics.

“The US will not abandon the Indo-Pacific because it is in their core interests,” Koo stated. However, he also acknowledged that international alliances are shaped by both values and national interests.

The US Shifts Focus to "Capable Allies"

Experts believe that Trump’s foreign policy is not about abandoning allies but about prioritizing the most capable ones.

“The Trump administration has no tolerance for free riders,” said Drew Thompson of RSIS Singapore.

“The countries that adapt quickly to this new reality will be America’s strongest partners, while those who fail to step up may be left behind,” he added.

As China continues to test the resolve of US allies, nations in the Indo-Pacific are being forced to reassess their reliance on Washington and prepare for a future where regional security is increasingly their own responsibility.

Trump Issues Final Warning to Hamas as US Engages in Direct Negotiations

US President Donald Trump delivered what he described as a “last warning” to Hamas, demanding the immediate release of all hostages in Gaza. His statement came just hours after the White House confirmed that it was engaged in direct negotiations with the militant group—a significant shift in US policy.

“Release all of the hostages now, not later, and immediately return all of the dead bodies of the people you murdered, or it is OVER for you,” Trump posted on Truth Social on Wednesday. His remarks followed a meeting with eight freed hostages at the White House.

Direct Talks with Hamas: A Policy Shift

Trump’s warning coincided with reports that the US was holding direct discussions with Hamas regarding both hostage releases and a ceasefire agreement in Gaza. This marks a departure from longstanding US policy, as Washington has traditionally refused to negotiate with groups it designates as terrorist organizations. The talks were first reported by Axios.

The US formally designated Hamas as a Foreign Terrorist Organization in 1997, and previous administrations, including Obama and Trump, have only rarely engaged in direct negotiations with similar groups—notably in talks with the Taliban following 9/11.

Israel’s Position and International Response

The White House insisted that Israel had been consulted about the negotiations. However, the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office issued a statement confirming that it had “expressed its position” to the US but did not clarify whether it had prior knowledge of the discussions or what stance it had taken.

Speaking to Fox Business, Ofir Akunis, Israel’s consul general in New York, expressed support for Trump’s pressure campaign against Hamas. “Instead of putting Israel under pressure, President Trump is putting Hamas under pressure, and this is the right thing to do,” Akunis stated.

Hamas Responds to Trump’s Ultimatum

Trump’s remarks were met with sharp criticism from Hamas, which claimed his threats could undermine ongoing ceasefire negotiations.

Hamas spokesperson Hazem Qassem told CNN that Trump’s comments risked derailing discussions and could embolden Israel to delay the implementation of the hostage deal.

“We have fulfilled our first-phase commitments under the US-brokered agreement, but the Israeli government is evading negotiations for the second phase,” Qassem said. He urged the US to pressure Israel into honoring the next stage of the agreement.

Humanitarian Aid Crisis in Gaza

Trump’s direct engagement with Hamas also comes at a time when international aid organizations are calling on Israel to restore humanitarian access to Gaza.

Following the expiration of the ceasefire’s first phase, Israel blocked humanitarian aid deliveries, citing Hamas’ rejection of a new Israeli proposal that lacked guarantees for a permanent truce or troop withdrawal. Israel’s foreign ministry accused Hamas of using aid to “rebuild its war machine”, claiming that aid trucks had become an economic engine for the militant group.

Global Reactions and Calls for Humanitarian Action

The foreign ministers of the UK, France, and Germany urged Israel to abide by international law and facilitate the delivery of essential supplies, including food, water, and medical aid, to Gaza’s 2.1 million residents. They stressed that lifesaving assistance should not be used as a political bargaining tool.

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has warned that 80 community kitchens in Gaza are at risk of closing if aid disruptions persist. Meanwhile, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) raised concerns about the severe impact on women and girls due to the worsening humanitarian crisis.

Trump’s Vision for Gaza’s Future

Beyond the current crisis, Trump has previously expressed an unconventional vision for Gaza’s future, describing it as a “prime real estate opportunity”. He has suggested that Gaza could be transformed into the “Riviera of the Middle East”—a statement that has drawn criticism from various quarters.

Ceasefire Challenges and Long-Term Implications

While Trump’s administration continues negotiations, there remains deep skepticism about whether Hamas and Israel can reach a sustainable agreement.

Analysts warn that any ceasefire plan must include long-term security guarantees to prevent renewed violence. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has also issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, citing allegations of war crimes.

Conclusion

As tensions escalate, Trump’s direct engagement with Hamas marks a significant shift in US foreign policy. His hardline warnings, combined with backchannel negotiations, could shape the next phase of the conflict—but whether they lead to a lasting resolution or further instability remains uncertain.