By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a video call with various world leaders, including U.S. President Donald Trump, French President Emmanuel Macron stated the U.S. is prepared to offer security guarantees to Ukraine post-war, though not through NATO membership, a key point for Russia. This stance from Trump was communicated just before his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska. A joint statement from Macron, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, reaffirmed readiness to provide security guarantees to Ukraine and stated that Russia should not hold veto power over Ukraine’s potential EU and NATO membership. Territorial discussions will involve Zelensky, which Trump supports.
Read the original article here
US will support Ukraine security guarantees, but no NATO membership, Macron says – That’s the crux of the current situation. It sounds like a familiar tune, doesn’t it? The idea is this: the US is willing to offer Ukraine some form of security assistance, essentially promising to help if things go south again. However, and this is the big “however,” it will stop short of offering full NATO membership. And from what I’m hearing, this isn’t exactly a welcome development.
The thing is, this isn’t the first time Ukraine has been offered assurances. They were given security guarantees back in 1994, in exchange for giving up their nuclear weapons. This agreement, known as the Budapest Memorandum, was supposed to protect them from aggression. The US, along with Russia and the UK, signed on the dotted line. But, as we all know, those guarantees didn’t hold up. Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, and the US’s response was… well, it wasn’t the promised military intervention. Given that history, it’s easy to see why people are skeptical about new promises of security.
The skepticism is understandable, especially with the context of current politics. There’s a widespread feeling that US guarantees, particularly under the current administration, aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. Some think this whole approach is a waste of time, just another way of kicking the can down the road. The argument is that Ukraine needs something more concrete, something that guarantees its safety and security. Many believe that means NATO membership, a commitment that would obligate all member states to come to Ukraine’s defense if attacked.
And this brings us to the core issue. Why no NATO membership? Well, there seem to be various factors at play. First, there’s the potential for escalation. Some fear that bringing Ukraine into NATO could be seen as a direct provocation to Russia, potentially leading to a wider conflict. Second, there’s the practical side of things. Some argue that Ukraine, currently embroiled in a war, isn’t ready for the responsibilities that come with NATO membership. Some worry that Ukraine is purely a liability. They bring the second largest army in Europe and have recent battle experience vs the largest army in Europe and the reason NATO was created.
Then there’s the role of the US. Trump is the weakest president the US has ever had. Some believe that the US, regardless of who’s in charge, might not be fully committed to Ukraine’s defense and might prefer a less binding arrangement. Given that the US has “supported” the last security guarantees, they can be ignored later.
This situation seems to be creating a perfect storm of uncertainty. Ukraine, having already been burned by broken promises, is being offered something that feels like a repeat of the past. Many are asking what the point of security guarantees is when Russia could just invade again a day later and nothing happens. They are also asking will these security guarantees result in the US sending military assistance if Ukraine is attacked? Probably not which raises the question, what is the point of security guarantees? It’s a tough spot to be in.
The fundamental problem is that without NATO membership, Russia could potentially invade again. That’s the crux of the matter. The only real deterrent, in this view, is the threat of all of NATO’s military might. Without that, Ukraine is essentially left vulnerable. And even with the promised security guarantees, there’s no guarantee that the US will actually follow through. It’s the same deal they got with the nukes and the Budapest Memorandum.