By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Zelenskyy reported receiving a strong assurance from President Trump that Russia would not attack Ukraine. He also highlighted a crucial discussion regarding U.S. military aid, with a confirmed $15 billion allocated for 2025 and a potential additional $15 billion currently slated for 2026. Zelenskyy is advocating to accelerate the disbursement of the latter sum, totaling $30 billion by 2025, to bolster Ukraine’s defense capabilities. This $30 billion would represent the U.S. contribution to a joint reconstruction fund, with Ukraine matching the amount over time.
Read the original article here
Zelenskyy’s reported statement, claiming Trump guaranteed Russia wouldn’t touch Ukraine if U.S. investments were present, raises significant doubt. The assertion itself rests on the premise that Russia’s restraint would stem not from fear of consequences, but from a supposed respect for the United States. This assumption is highly questionable, given past misjudgments about Russia’s intentions.
The idea that Putin, having navigated multiple U.S. administrations, would suddenly be deterred by a specific U.S. business presence seems unrealistic. Putin’s actions demonstrate a long-term strategic vision, unfazed by the cyclical nature of American foreign policy. Agreements predicated on the whims of a single individual, particularly one known for inconsistency, are inherently unstable. The very phrasing “Trump tells me” instantly signals potential unreliability, hinting at the likelihood of deception.
A simple comparison underscores this point: American contractors’ presence in Kuwait did not prevent Saddam Hussein’s invasion. Likewise, U.S. investment in Ukraine is unlikely to deter a determined Russian aggression. Only Ukraine’s NATO membership could provide the guaranteed security that U.S. investment cannot. This highlights a critical flaw in the supposed guarantee: it relies entirely on an unpredictable variable—Trump’s continued commitment—rather than a firm security framework.
The skepticism extends further to Trump’s overall credibility. His history of broken promises and transactional approach to international relations casts serious doubt on the sincerity of any guarantee. A cynical view might suggest this ‘guarantee’ serves Trump’s own interests, potentially opening avenues for personal gain rather than genuine security for Ukraine. The risk is that Trump prioritizes business deals over national interests, perhaps even facilitating deals detrimental to U.S. allies.
The potential scenarios range from subtle undermining—where Trump’s actions indirectly benefit Russia—to blatant betrayals, resulting in significant harm to Ukraine. The situation is exacerbated by the inherent uncertainty surrounding Trump’s motivations and alliances. His unpredictable nature means he could easily switch positions, leaving Ukraine vulnerable.
Ultimately, trusting Trump’s word regarding Russia’s intentions is a significant gamble. The potential benefits of U.S. investment in Ukraine are overshadowed by the considerable risks inherent in relying on such a fragile and unreliable guarantee. The scenario’s instability hinges on the capricious nature of one individual, creating a dangerously unpredictable situation for Ukraine. The lack of a concrete, verifiable security framework leaves Ukraine vulnerable, no matter the level of U.S. investment.
Even if one were to optimistically believe that Trump would, for some unknown reason, genuinely protect U.S. interests in Ukraine, the inherent risks are still considerable. Russia could target areas outside of those with significant U.S. investment. Moreover, the response from a future U.S. administration to any Russian aggression would be uncertain, regardless of Trump’s current promises.
The entire situation reveals a concerning power dynamic: a nation’s security depends on the personal promises of a highly unpredictable individual. Such reliance on unreliable assurances is precarious, highlighting the crucial need for stable, verifiable security frameworks that transcend individual personalities and political fluctuations. The proposed solution, while seemingly offering a shortcut to security, remains an inadequate substitute for the robust international cooperation and solid security guarantees that Ukraine desperately needs.