By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The United States has agreed to provide Ukraine with unspecified security guarantees as part of a peace deal to end the war with Russia, according to officials. Talks with envoys led to narrowing differences on security guarantees and Moscow’s demand for land concessions in the Donbas region. The U.S. is planning to present the agreement for Senate approval, with discussions set to continue, potentially in Miami. European leaders and the U.S. have committed to joint efforts in providing robust security guarantees, including a multinational force.
Read the original article here
US officials say Washington has agreed to give Ukraine security guarantees in peace talks, and this news, well, it’s complicated. The initial reaction, judging by the overall sentiment, isn’t exactly brimming with optimism. The general feeling leans towards skepticism, and frankly, who can blame anyone for feeling that way? The United States, after all, has a history of making promises it hasn’t always kept.
The core of the issue, and what really seems to be sticking in people’s craws, is the memory of the Budapest Memorandum of 1994. In that agreement, Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees from the US, Russia, and the UK. As many remember, that promise didn’t exactly pan out as expected, and now, here we are again, apparently with more security guarantees on the table. The history of broken promises casts a long shadow, making it hard to trust the current situation.
Then there’s the presence of figures like Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, envoys from the Trump camp. This detail immediately raises eyebrows. Given the previous administration’s complex relationship with Russia, and the former President’s known tendencies, these guarantees are naturally viewed with a significant dose of wariness. If you’ve been following the news, you are likely aware of Trump’s statements. Many remember his affinity for Putin and wonder how much influence Russia actually has.
The concern extends beyond just the individuals involved. The nature of these “unspecified” security guarantees fuels more doubt. Without concrete details, it’s easy to envision a scenario where the promises are merely words, lacking any real teeth or enforcement mechanism. As one person put it, “It’s not a security guarantee. It’s guaranteed leverage.” This sentiment seems to be pretty common.
The lack of clarity isn’t helping. What do these guarantees actually *mean*? Will it be NATO boots on the ground? Unlikely. Will it be something more akin to vague assurances? Possibly, and unfortunately, it could be a move that would ultimately benefit Russia. The fear is that the US could be, perhaps inadvertently, playing into Russia’s hands.
The source of the distrust goes beyond just the specifics of the current administration. It seems to stem from a broader feeling that the US has lost credibility on the world stage. Repeated broken promises, inconsistent foreign policy, and shifting alliances have eroded trust, making it difficult for anyone, especially Ukraine, to believe in Washington’s word. This, combined with the perception that the US is more focused on its own interests, further undermines the value of any guarantees offered.
Adding to the complexity is the volatile political landscape in the US itself. The possibility of another change in administration, and the potential for a complete reversal of policy, only compounds the uncertainty. As pointed out by a few, promises from a figure prone to changing his mind are, to put it mildly, not very reliable.
The history of the last 30 years or so shows this. The fact that the US isn’t following through on its deals, as well as the perception that the US may not even be in Ukraine’s corner, leaves a bitter taste in the mouth of anyone who might be tempted to trust these guarantees. It also doesn’t help that many people feel that America’s word is no longer worth much these days.
Ultimately, the general sentiment is clear. While the news of security guarantees might sound promising on the surface, the underlying cynicism is palpable. The combination of past failures, the current political climate, and the lack of specific details makes it difficult, if not impossible, for many to believe in these promises. The fear is that Ukraine is being set up for disappointment, repeating the mistakes of the past and falling into a trap. And as many point out, the only real guarantee would be boots on the ground, something Russia is unlikely to agree to. It’s a tricky situation, and the general feeling is that it is essentially back to square one.