Land, NATO, and Security Guarantees: Inside the Push for a Ukraine Peace Deal

The Charlie Kirk Show’s latest episode centered on one urgent question: What would it actually take to end the war in Ukraine? With a high-profile meeting between Vladimir Putin and President Trump reportedly underway and Volodymyr Zelensky visiting the White House with European leaders in tow, the show gathered three voices to unpack the moment: Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (Ret.), Senator Eric Schmitt, and Ambassador Matthew Whitaker. Their conversation focused on three “sticking points” that could make or break a peace agreement: land, NATO, and security guarantees.

Below is a structured look at their arguments—and what they believe a path to peace might realistically include.

Setting the table: How we got here Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn stresses that the conflict’s roots trace back to 2014, not 2022, and argues that Western funding dramatically intensified the war in recent years. From his perspective, Russia’s core interest has been consistent: no further NATO expansion on its borders. He frames today’s diplomacy around a basic premise—if negotiations are to work, the U.S. and Europe must acknowledge Russia’s security concerns while prioritizing a long-term peace agreement, not just a ceasefire.

The three sticking points 1) Land Flynn argues that Ukraine has “lost terrain and prestige,” and he points to votes in 2022 in occupied eastern regions aligning with Russia (a claim that is contested internationally). He suggests a deal might include a special status arrangement for Crimea—comparable to a long-term trade or administrative zone—to secure access for Russia’s Black Sea Fleet while stabilizing the region. In his view, any agreement should also establish a durable buffer or separation zone to prevent future flare-ups.

2) NATO All three guests emphasize NATO’s original defensive mandate and the alliance’s consensus-based decision-making. Ambassador Whitaker says plainly that there is “currently no path” for Ukraine to join NATO—both because of the ongoing war and because all 32 members must agree. He reiterates that discussions of “security guarantees” should not be conflated with NATO Article 5-style obligations.

3) Security guarantees If Ukraine isn’t joining NATO, what would give Kyiv confidence to stop fighting? Flynn suggests some form of non-NATO guarantee could be workable if it prevents further escalation and satisfies Russia’s red lines. Ambassador Whitaker adds that if guarantees emerge, they would likely be managed by a “coalition of the willing” (European-led) rather than NATO itself—and, crucially, without U.S. combat troops on the ground. Command-and-control roles or other non-kinetic support might be possible, he notes, but not Article 5-style commitments.

The nuclear shadow and the broader strategic picture Flynn repeatedly warns against cornering a nuclear power. He argues the war is not going well for Ukraine and that aiming for “regime change” in Moscow is unrealistic and dangerous. He also contends that the conflict’s geopolitical “winner” to date has been China, which benefits from a distracted West and altered global alignments. To avoid nuclear escalation, he says, the U.S. should seek practical, face-saving offramps and pursue a comprehensive settlement.

Domestic politics and the lawfare lens Sen. Eric Schmitt pivots to domestic politics and the legal climate, discussing his new book, The Last Line of Defense, which chronicles high-profile legal battles he led as Missouri’s attorney general and outlines a playbook he believes can counter government “overreach” and censorship. Schmitt then returns to Ukraine, praising President Trump’s diplomatic engagement and contrasting it with what he characterizes as a “blank check” approach under the previous administration. He frames the current moment as a necessary shift from Wilsonian adventurism to hard-nosed, interest-based diplomacy.

Burden-sharing and Europe’s role Ambassador Whitaker underscores a key policy change: Europe must take primary responsibility—both financially and militarily—for European security. He highlights efforts to move away from direct U.S. provisioning toward Europeans buying U.S. equipment and supplying Ukraine themselves. He states clearly that any peace framework should not pull NATO into collective defense obligations for Ukraine, reiterating that peace must be negotiated by the parties actually fighting the war: Ukraine and Russia.

What a plausible deal might include While details remain fluid, the conversation points toward a tentative outline: - No NATO membership for Ukraine, for the foreseeable future. - European-led “security guarantees” outside NATO structures (no U.S. combat troops). - A durable separation or buffer zone to reduce the risk of renewed fighting. - A negotiated special status for Crimea that stabilizes sea access and trade—without reopening constant hostilities. - A shift toward European financial and military burden-sharing, with the U.S. in a mediating and support role rather than a primary combat supporter.

Key takeaways - The three big issues are land, NATO, and security guarantees—and each has potential compromise space if both sides prioritize ending the war. - The guests argue that NATO will not—and should not—be the vehicle for any Ukraine guarantees. A separate, Europe-led framework is more realistic. - Avoiding nuclear escalation is paramount; policy choices must include offramps that great powers can accept. - Europe should shoulder more of the cost and risk. U.S. support should be calibrated, not open-ended. - Diplomacy will be messy. A “good” deal may be one where neither side gets everything—but the killing stops.

The road ahead As Zelensky meets with European leaders and U.S. officials, and as President Trump continues talks with Putin, the show’s guests make one thing clear: this is hard, real-world diplomacy. It’s personalities, interests, and negotiated trade-offs—not white papers. Flynn believes a long-term peace agreement is achievable if negotiators avoid maximalist goals and accept the political realities on the ground. Schmitt urges persistence in the face of media skepticism and entrenched assumptions. Whitaker emphasizes that any deal should keep the U.S. out of Article 5-style commitments and avoid putting American boots on the ground.

Conclusion: A deal no one loves—but one that ends the killing If a peace is possible, it will likely look imperfect. Ukraine may not regain all contested territories; Russia may accept limits and security arrangements it would rather avoid; Europe may need to shoulder far more responsibility than it has in years. But imperfect peace beats perfect war. The episode’s central message is that a negotiated settlement—focused on practical security guarantees, clear limits, and a durable separation of forces—could stop a conflict that has become a grinding war of attrition. In their view, the task now is to let the mediation run its course, keep NATO out of direct obligations, and push Europe to lead—so the killing can finally stop and the region can begin to rebuild.

--- *This blog post was generated from the YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iv0NJuuUUPM*