This seems very vague. Great opportunity to critique Trump again though.
It is vague.
I don't know what a final negotiated security guarantee would look like.
You also need to find countries willing to step into that role.
The composition of one now is going to look different than one might have looked like pre-invasion.
And Trump deserves the critique.
You may think dissolving NATO is a good thing, there have long been arguments for fundamentally changing it, restructuring it, or even disbanding it, but it would be silly to say that Trump hasn't repeatedly expressed a desire to exit or dismantle it.
He's been saying that for 8 years or more.
There are dozens of military alliances in existence.
Could one just step in and take NATO's place?
Of course not.
But there are various configurations that could step up to fill a void if NATO vanishes.
In fact, that's almost inevitable, since a new global situation will mean realignment in various ways.
Given the drumbeating of the Trump-Russia conspiracy theme, most people would think the pause would at least last through Trump's four year term.
I think that would be likely.
If the idea is that Putin wants Trump to look like he got a win, then he has little reason to press the war as long as he can also sell it domestically at home.
A short pause might also happen, though, since Putin could just start up again, blame Ukraine and the rest of Europe, and count on the US to stay out of it.
If he thinks the new situation means he can get what he wants, why not do it?
(A lot would depend on what the cease fire or peace deal negotiations end up with, of course. If Putin has gotten what he wants from those, he may well see no reason to spend further military resources in Ukraine, preferring to spend them elsewhere.)
I think a lot of Americans, Ukrainians and even Canadians would welcome the EU stepping up.
Containment ain't pretty.
The less reliable the US appears, the more Europe will have to decide if they step up and in what way.
