After a meeting with President Putin and discussing with him a peace agreement with Ukraine, President Trump called Zelensky and a group of European heads of state to hear their reactions to the Russian peace proposal.
One of the points raised was "Ukraine Security", if any peace agreement is reached.
But, if a peace agreement based on the Russian proposal is reached, then why would Russia want to break it?
Given the European and US "neocon" hostility to Russia and desire to break it up into small "liberal democracies" like Zelensky's Ukraine, the breach of such agreement is likely to be caused by their side.
Also the demand for "European boots" on the ground, coming mostly from Britain and France is motivated by their desire to present themselves as "peace keepers" who can "deploy" their troops around the world, and thus to retake the "High Moral Ground" after their criminal wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, ... .
But the obvious way to "guarantee" Ukraine's security would be for the USA to become the peace enforcer, and, if either side breaks the peace agreement, to use its full military might to come to the defence of the attacked side and enforce terms of the agreement.
The USA not only can enforce the peace agreement, once it is reached, it can also ensure that it is reached by ending all support for Ukraine, if it refuses to accept the agreement without valid reasons.
And this will give peace and security to both the sides at the earliest time.
To make Russia and Europe feel secure NATO would need to be disbanded.
NATO is a military alliance which was created in 1949 based on the false assumption that USSR wanted to invade NATO member countries. After the end of the USSR in 1991, the same false claim is continued be used against the Russian Federation to justify NATO's existence.
Continued existence of NATO, and of the ideology used to justify its existence, was the main cause of the present Ukraine war. And, even if this war is ended, it will continue to be the main cause of European insecurity.