By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Donald Trump stated that Ukraine can end the war with Russia, but “no going into NATO by Ukraine” is acceptable in a peace deal. Trump’s comments followed his summit with Putin, and came as Zelensky prepared to meet with Trump at the White House, alongside several European leaders. Zelensky reiterated his call for security guarantees while also expressing that Crimea would not be given up. European officials are reportedly concerned that Trump may pressure Zelensky into accepting terms during the meeting, despite the Secretary of State’s comments denying this possibility.
Read the original article here
“No going into NATO by Ukraine,” says Trump as Zelensky prepares for White House talks – the crux of the matter, it seems, revolves around a potential roadblock to Ukraine’s future security, and it’s coming directly from a former US President, even as the current Ukrainian leader gears up for talks in Washington. The phrase itself, a blunt declaration, speaks volumes, doesn’t it? It’s almost as if the groundwork is being laid for a negotiation that’s already decided.
This “Art of the Deal,” if that’s what it’s being touted as, raises eyebrows. Is it a genuine attempt at diplomacy, or something else entirely? The notion of giving everything away while receiving nothing in return hardly seems like a winning strategy. And when you consider the stakes – the security and sovereignty of Ukraine – the implications become even more concerning.
The very fact that other European leaders are reportedly joining the discussions with Zelensky suggests a certain level of worry, doesn’t it? Concern that the United States might not be a reliable partner in this critical moment. The fact that there are serious concerns about the motives of those involved is the elephant in the room.
The core of the issue here is Ukraine’s potential membership in NATO. NATO, after all, was created to prevent exactly the kind of aggression that Ukraine is currently enduring. The logical conclusion, from a security standpoint, is for Ukraine to join the alliance. But if the US is openly opposing this, the whole dynamic changes.
If Ukraine cannot join NATO, what other options exist? The fallback position seems to be a “NATO in all but name” setup, but how effective would such a system be, particularly if key players are actively working against the idea? Furthermore, the constant threat of the US withdrawing from NATO, as suggested by some, creates a real sense of instability and weakens the organization’s resolve.
Then, of course, there’s the question of influence. If someone is perceived as being in cahoots with Russia, and that person is dictating terms regarding Ukraine’s future, one can’t help but wonder if there is compromising information, that could be used to influence those terms. It certainly doesn’t paint a picture of strength and support for Ukraine.
The potential impact of this is stark. Ukraine could be left with a diminished capacity for self-defense, giving Putin an opportunity to rearm and attack again. That scenario is the last thing Ukraine needs.
Why would anyone trust the United States in this situation? With the suggestion of child trafficking and the refusal to support a vital defensive alliance, the optics are terrible. This creates a climate of uncertainty for everyone. It undermines the work and sacrifices being made to support Ukraine.
The concerns aren’t just about the present; they’re about the future. Will other nations view the United States as a trustworthy ally? Will this influence the dynamics of global defense for years to come?
Some sources hint at an interesting scenario where the EU might step in, bypassing the US, and boosting aid to Ukraine. The idea of a European-led effort to secure Ukraine’s borders, independent of US involvement, could represent a huge shift in the geopolitical landscape.
This entire situation is a mess. The idea of a “peace deal” that essentially sells out Ukraine’s security and gives Putin what he wants is a dangerous path. The focus needs to be on supporting Ukraine’s right to defend itself and its desire to be part of a collective security structure.