By John Q. Hosedrinker 
An advisor to Donald Trump indicated the potential deployment of US troops to Ukraine as part of future security guarantees after the conflict ends. This possibility arose from discussions during an August meeting in Alaska, where Kremlin leader Vladimir Putin allegedly agreed to US and European allies providing Ukraine with security guarantees. While another advisor cautioned against prematurely discussing specifics, the implication is that both Ukraine and Russia will need to make concessions. However, Russia previously opposed the stationing of NATO troops in Ukraine.
Read the original article here
Trump adviser says US could deploy troops to Ukraine as part of future security guarantees – Axios, and the immediate reaction that springs to mind is, well, who really believes this? The mere suggestion that a Trump administration would put American boots on the ground in Ukraine sparks a flurry of questions and skepticism. It’s a bold statement, one that clashes with the perception of Trump’s policies and past actions.
Let’s unpack this further. The immediate thought is, would this be a genuine commitment to defend Ukraine, or could it potentially be a move that inadvertently supports Russia? This raises the eyebrows of anyone familiar with Trump’s past statements and potential relationships. The irony isn’t lost either. Remember all the criticism levied at Biden for supplying Ukraine with military equipment? Would deploying troops align with the “America First” mantra that was so prevalent during his previous term?
The core of the issue lies in the question of what the true intention behind such a move might be. Is it a genuine show of support for Ukraine, or could it be a tactic, a negotiation chip, or even something far more complex? It’s easy to imagine a scenario where Trump’s actions are met with a mixture of surprise and a scramble for justification from his supporters. The MAGA crowd, who are generally known for their loyalty, could be forced to reconcile this action with Trump’s campaign promises of avoiding foreign entanglements.
Now, let’s consider the potential outcomes. There’s a very real possibility that this talk could just remain talk. Trump has a history of making grand statements that don’t always translate into action. He might simply not follow through. Conversely, if he does deploy troops, it would be a significant departure from his past rhetoric and could trigger internal conflict within his base. Then again, there’s always the third option, and this one is the most interesting. It involves a world where the MAGA base enthusiastically supports the deployment of troops while conveniently overlooking the campaign promises. Perhaps they would even find a way to fold it into the NATO narrative.
Beyond the speculation, there are some fundamental questions about the practicality and reliability of such a guarantee. Pledging troops is one thing; ensuring it’s effective is another. The success of any security guarantee would likely depend on the agreement and cooperation of other nations, particularly those within Europe. A purely US-led effort might be seen as insufficient or unreliable. Given the current global climate, the idea of the US being a trustworthy ally in this regard is also in question.
Moreover, the article opens the door to the obvious cynicism. The US’s credibility on the world stage is under scrutiny. The possibility that these troops might be deployed to, or even to facilitate, a handover of Ukrainian territories to Russia is a valid concern. This creates doubts about the true intent behind any such commitment. This is heightened by the knowledge that past administrations have had their own conflicts on whether to support Ukraine.
What’s also important is how Trump has previously discussed Ukraine. He has talked about wanting to acquire its natural resources. He’s never mentioned peace, stability, or accountability for the invading dictator. This raises red flags, particularly when considering the potential role US troops might play. It is worth noting the concern that they could actually be there to support Russian forces.
The idea of a Trump administration’s word being taken at face value is almost laughable, given the history of misleading statements and broken promises. The suggestion that troops could be deployed to defend Ukraine is met with immediate skepticism. The very mention of troop deployment conjures up images of unintended consequences and potential disasters. How could a deployment, from someone who abandoned the Kurds in northern Syria, be trusted?
Finally, this entire concept of security guarantees seems like an empty promise. It raises the question of whether the Ukrainians would even want Americans there, especially given the uncertainty surrounding Trump’s allegiances. The underlying issue here is trust. A US military presence is a complex thing, and history has shown that simply deploying troops doesn’t always guarantee a positive outcome.