By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The United States has offered Ukraine security guarantees for 15 years as part of a proposed peace plan, though Ukraine would prefer a longer commitment. Negotiations, led by the U.S. and Russia, continue to search for a breakthrough on key issues such as troop withdrawal. The talks come as Russia claims its forces are advancing and also reports an attack on Putin’s residence. A national referendum to approve the 20-point peace plan is under discussion, though it requires a ceasefire.
Read the original article here
US offers Ukraine 15-year security guarantee as part of peace plan, Zelenskyy says. It’s hard to know where to begin unpacking the layers of complexity and skepticism surrounding this offer, isn’t it? The immediate reaction is a mix of concern and wariness, considering the track record of promises made and broken, especially in this specific geopolitical context. It’s a bit like being offered a fancy new car with a guarantee, but the car is already dented, and the salesman has a reputation for being unreliable.
The core of the issue, and the source of so much concern, revolves around trust. Specifically, the trustworthiness of the United States, and more pointedly, of certain individuals who might be in power during the 15-year guarantee. We’ve heard strong sentiments that the current US administration, or any future one potentially led by certain figures, cannot be trusted to uphold such a promise. There are clear expressions of doubt regarding the US’s willingness to defend Ukraine if it came to a confrontation with Russia, with some going as far as to say they wouldn’t even trust the US to defend its own NATO allies. This is compounded by the fact that the US, under specific leadership, has expressed doubts about its commitment to its existing treaty obligations.
The memories of past agreements and guarantees that failed to protect Ukraine loom large. The Budapest Memorandum, where Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for security assurances, is often cited as a prime example of the potential futility of such promises. It’s hard to ignore the fact that the US, along with the UK, seemed to hesitate in providing meaningful support when the very agreement they had a hand in brokering was violated. This history casts a long shadow, fueling the skepticism surrounding any new security guarantee, regardless of its duration.
There’s also significant worry that the proposed peace plan is heavily influenced, perhaps even manipulated, by external factors, particularly Russia’s own strategic goals. Some suspect that the offer is designed to allow Russia time to rebuild its military and potentially re-initiate aggression later. Others point to the possibility that the plan could be a way to strip Ukraine of its valuable resources, leaving it vulnerable to future attacks. These concerns highlight the underlying fear that the “peace” being offered might actually be a prelude to further conflict or exploitation. The question of who pays for damages, and what Russia has to concede, is missing from the discussion.
The very nature of “security guarantees” is questioned, especially in the context of the current geopolitical environment. How effective can any guarantee be if it doesn’t involve a clear and forceful deterrent that would trigger a wider conflict if Russia were to violate it? Without a robust mechanism to deter future aggression, the guarantees offered seem inadequate, potentially setting Ukraine up for disappointment, or worse. The suggestion of peacekeeping boots on the ground is also a topic of debate, with some believing this is the only way to avoid another attack. Putin’s position indicates that that is not possible, so how is any type of peace going to be maintained?
There is deep concern about the potential for political theater, with the deal being seen as something Putin uses to appear as if he is open to resolving the issue while setting the stage for future aggression. There’s a widespread feeling that both Trump and Putin can’t be trusted, with some questioning the motivation behind the discussions. Given the past rhetoric and actions of specific leaders, such promises seem hollow, even dangerous. There’s a strong sentiment that any such agreement could be a trap.
Finally, there are blunt assessments of the US’s reliability as an ally, and how that has changed based on certain figures. The US is said to be prioritizing its own interests, which is a concern for Ukraine, and the lack of faith is understandable. It’s a sad state of affairs when allies are beginning to view the US as potentially worse than Russia. The overall sentiment is that the US, based on current perceptions, should not be trusted.