By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a meeting at Mar-a-Lago, President Zelenskyy announced that US security guarantees for Ukraine were fully agreed upon. He also revealed that a 20-point peace plan was 90% agreed, with an economic revitalization plan nearly finalized. While acknowledging the success of the talks, President Trump indicated that the territorial partition issue remained unresolved and that Europe would play a significant role in Ukraine’s future security. The discussions included a phone call with European leaders, showing good progress toward finalizing documents, possibly within the next month, as hoped by Zelenskyy.
Read the original article here
“US-Ukraine security guarantees 100% agreed,” Zelenskyy says after meeting with Trump – well, that’s quite a statement, isn’t it? It’s the kind of headline that immediately sets off alarm bells for anyone who’s been paying attention to the past. The prevailing sentiment here, and I have to say, it’s pretty loud and clear, is one of deep skepticism. The idea of a 100% guarantee from the former president is, frankly, met with a lot of distrust, bordering on outright disbelief. It seems the consensus view is that such a guarantee would be about as reliable as a chocolate teapot.
One thing is very clear: the concern isn’t just about the words themselves. It’s about the context, the history, and the reputation of the person making the promise. We’re talking about a track record of, let’s call them “flexible commitments.” There’s a strong sentiment that any agreement reached would be subject to change, perhaps even reversed, at the whim of a phone call or a shift in political winds. The general feeling is that a guarantee made today could be worthless tomorrow, especially after a conversation with a certain world leader. The phrase “guaranteed betrayal” gets thrown around, and that really sums up the general perception.
The skepticism extends beyond mere political mistrust. It’s woven with the broader concern that any such deal would be a carefully constructed facade. The worry is that the agreement would be swiftly abandoned, leaving Ukraine vulnerable and exposed to future aggression. The comparison to how the US has handled agreements with its closest allies is not comforting. The lack of faith isn’t just about the person making the promise, it’s about the system and the political game itself. There are references to the need for Congressional approval to make the guarantee legitimate. That seems to be the one element that might lend it some actual weight.
The very nature of the negotiations seems to be viewed as deeply troubling. There’s a sense that the situation has been handled as more of a “quid pro quo” arrangement, with flattery determining who gets what. This approach, paired with the idea of a potential deal being dependent on personal relationships, doesn’t inspire confidence. The lack of a firm timeline or any concrete details surrounding the alleged guarantees just adds fuel to the fire. “We will see in a few weeks” is hardly reassuring when the fate of a nation hangs in the balance.
Furthermore, there is a distinct preference for other countries to provide guarantees. The European Union, for instance, is seen as a far more credible source. This highlights the widespread belief that the trustworthiness of the US, at least under the current circumstances, is severely diminished. It’s worth noting the suggestion that Canada and Mexico have trade agreements with the US that the US doesn’t even honor. This fact alone makes a US guarantee rather laughable.
The skepticism isn’t just about the potential betrayal of the agreement itself, but about the underlying intentions. The idea that a deal might be struck with the ultimate aim of persuading Ukraine to surrender to Russian demands is a chilling one. It’s a perception that paints the situation as a dangerous trap, a move to weaken and isolate Ukraine. It’s a sentiment that speaks to a deep sense of mistrust and wariness about what might happen next.
The comments also reflect a certain weariness, a sense of having been through this before. There’s a general tone of “here we go again,” and a feeling that a deal from a specific person will be worth less than the paper it’s written on. The history of broken promises casts a long shadow, and it makes it difficult to believe in any commitment that’s not backed by concrete action and institutional support. The “pee pee tapes” and the “bubba tapes” – which are just a joke – further reinforce the idea that there are underlying games being played, distracting from the reality of the situation.
So, in short, while the headline is eye-catching, the overwhelmingly dominant reaction is one of profound doubt. The idea of a 100% agreement feels more like a 10% chance of being honored, a guaranteed piece of, well, you get the picture. The feeling that any such guarantee would be short-lived is extremely high, and the advice would seem to be “don’t hold your breath.” It seems that the only thing that’s guaranteed is that the next chapter in this saga is going to be complex, and most likely, deeply disappointing.