There is desperation and brilliance to Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s proposal to provide Ukraine with post-war security by offering to cover it with the umbrella of NATO’s Article 5 Security guarantee, but not membership itself. It is loopy, because it would commit the US and Europe to precisely the risk of direct military engagement with Russia, a nuclear superpower, that they have been trying to avoid since Russian President Vladimir Putin sent troops into Georgia in 2008.
It seems as unlikely that US President Donald Trump would agree to such a move as former US president Joe Biden, who meticulously (and for Ukraine disastrously) drip fed the provision of arms to avoid an assessed nuclear escalation risk.
However, Meloni’s idea also has a kind of genius. She has thought this through at least as clearly as France and the UK, with their troubled proposal to put troops on the ground as behind-the-lines peacekeepers.
That is a hard to understand concept and faces a plethora of challenges, from a dearth of the airlift, troops and artillery needed sustain a war-fighting force big enough to deter Russia, to an over-dependence on the US for critical intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets. And that is if the Kremlin agreed and the US provided the necessary backstop should Russia decide to attack the peacekeepers. Neither seems likely.
PUTIN TEST
The cleverness of Meloni’s proposal lies in the way it would test to destruction Putin’s rationale for his invasion of a sovereign neighbor, one that so many in the West — including Trump — have swallowed whole. This is that Putin acted to counter a threat posed to Russia by NATO’s eastward expansion.
There is no question that Putin attacked Ukraine in significant part in response to NATO’s open-door policy — the alliance had not actually done any expanding toward Russia since 2004; subsequent additions were to the south, in the western Balkans, while Finland and Sweden joined only after the Ukraine invasion.
The important question — the one that Meloni’s proposal would test — is the nature of the threat Putin saw. Was it that Putin felt NATO would be able to use newly acquired bases to attack Russia? This is what Kremlin officials routinely say or imply, and NATO’s critics assume. Or was it because even the promise of NATO — and, equally, EU membership — threatened his plans to force those neighbors into a renewed sphere of control? This was the belief, born of centuries of experience with Russian domination and expansion, of the countries that began pounding on NATO’s door for admission as soon as the Soviet Union collapsed.
The evidence all points to the latter, as I have argued in detail here. Indeed, when Putin annexed Crimea in 2014, Ukraine’s constitution excluded joining any military alliance and NATO had stood by the terms of the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act. This committed the alliance to not station nuclear weapons, bases or troops on the territories of its new members. It was not until 2017 that the first NATO soldiers moved to Poland, for example.
The net effect of the founding act was to grant new members the security they craved under NATO’s Article 5 collective defense pledge, but without provisions that Russia could legitimately consider provocative.
Meloni’s proposal for Ukraine would have the same result, but from the opposite starting point: non-membership. This would offer much clearer assurance to Moscow that it would not end up with NATO bases on another 1,974km of its land borders, in addition to the roughly 2,500km it already has. It is because all evidence points to the motive for Putin’s aggressive policies toward the Baltic states, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and others as a desire force them into his own NATO and EU sound-alikes — the Collective Security Treaty Organization and the Eurasian Union — that he would likely refuse Meloni’s proposal.
If his goal were peace and the security of Russia’s borders, rather than its expansion as a great power by force if necessary, he would surely accept.
CLARIFYING MOMENT
It is worth testing Meloni’s idea. Putin’s refusal could then provide a clarifying moment, putting into context his invasions of Ukraine, as well as demands such as Kyiv’s disarmament and NATO’s roll-back from all former Soviet-bloc nations. So, too, his latest proposal for regime change, which is to place all of Ukraine under transitional UN control, remove Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and “finish off” Ukraine’s armed forces.
That earned a public rebuke from Trump on Sunday. He told NBC he was “very angry” and threatened tough oil sanctions if Putin blew up US peacemaking efforts. This clarity could at the same time shine a useful light on those US efforts.
Despite Trump’s threats on Sunday, there has been a deep and cynical gulf between the new US administration’s stated goal of saving lives and ending an unwinnable war, and its actions. Those have been to cede most of Russia’s key demands, exclude Ukraine from the negotiation, and coerce Zelenskiy into granting the US control over all of his nation’s mineral resources and infrastructure in perpetuity.
As Bloomberg News reported on Saturday, Kyiv is now trying to secure less usurious terms, without causing a rift that leads to a further suspension of US military aid. If this clarity were all that adopting Meloni’s proposal achieved, it would be well worth the effort as we are drowning in Russian and now US disinformation. Under the guise of self-defense, Russia is engaged in a classic, colonial war of territorial expansion as it tries to regain control over a lost empire.
US EXPLOITATION
Meanwhile, the Trump administration is exploiting Kyiv’s moment of greatest dependency to impose a resource-extraction contract.
That deal was recently revised into a form worthy of Belgium’s 19th-century exploitation of what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo, while offering Ukraine no security guarantees whatsoever. This is done in the name of helping Ukraine, yet the net effect of the deal would be to exclude Europe from Ukraine’s economic future and cripple its post-war reconstruction, while taking no responsibility for its defense.
Such is the untrammeled rule of the strong. The savage intent of both powers now pawing at Ukraine is worthy of the opening passages of Heart of Darkness, the novel Joseph Conrad set in the Belgian Congo.
“They grabbed what they could get for the sake of what was to be got. It was just robbery with violence, aggravated murder on a great scale,” says the narrator, Marlow, adding that conquest of the world “is not a pretty thing.”
Marc Champion is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Europe, Russia and the Middle East. He was previously Istanbul bureau chief for the Wall Street Journal. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
The US Senate’s passage of the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which urges Taiwan’s inclusion in the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise and allocates US$1 billion in military aid, marks yet another milestone in Washington’s growing support for Taipei. On paper, it reflects the steadiness of US commitment, but beneath this show of solidarity lies contradiction. While the US Congress builds a stable, bipartisan architecture of deterrence, US President Donald Trump repeatedly undercuts it through erratic decisions and transactional diplomacy. This dissonance not only weakens the US’ credibility abroad — it also fractures public trust within Taiwan. For decades,
In 1976, the Gang of Four was ousted. The Gang of Four was a leftist political group comprising Chinese Communist Party (CCP) members: Jiang Qing (江青), its leading figure and Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) last wife; Zhang Chunqiao (張春橋); Yao Wenyuan (姚文元); and Wang Hongwen (王洪文). The four wielded supreme power during the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), but when Mao died, they were overthrown and charged with crimes against China in what was in essence a political coup of the right against the left. The same type of thing might be happening again as the CCP has expelled nine top generals. Rather than a
Former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmaker Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) on Saturday won the party’s chairperson election with 65,122 votes, or 50.15 percent of the votes, becoming the second woman in the seat and the first to have switched allegiance from the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to the KMT. Cheng, running for the top KMT position for the first time, had been termed a “dark horse,” while the biggest contender was former Taipei mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌), considered by many to represent the party’s establishment elite. Hau also has substantial experience in government and in the KMT. Cheng joined the Wild Lily Student
Taipei stands as one of the safest capital cities the world. Taiwan has exceptionally low crime rates — lower than many European nations — and is one of Asia’s leading democracies, respected for its rule of law and commitment to human rights. It is among the few Asian countries to have given legal effect to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant of Social Economic and Cultural Rights. Yet Taiwan continues to uphold the death penalty. This year, the government has taken a number of regressive steps: Executions have resumed, proposals for harsher prison sentences
RSS