New York Times: Ukraine should not trust Trump’s empty security guarantee

According to Isna, the American media reported that the security guarantees offered by the United States to Ukraine in the peace talks with Russia, especially during the presidency of “Donald Trump”, lacked real validity and could not create an effective deterrent against Moscow.

According to The New York Times, ongoing talks between the United States and Ukraine are gradually converging on a framework for a possible peace deal with Russia that is built on a flawed premise. The central idea of ​​this framework is for Ukraine to cede part of the disputed lands in the Donbass region and in return to receive strong security guarantees from the United States, which is supposed to prevent any further Russian attacks on Ukraine.

The New York Times argues that while such a deal might be politically understandable for Ukraine’s leadership, it would be strategically wrong because any security guarantees from the US president would lack real credibility.

This article writes that “Volodymyr Zelensky”, the president of Ukraine, is facing intense internal pressure, because the majority of the people of this country are against the handing over of the land. In such a situation, the promise of firm security guarantees from the US can be a justification for accepting painful concessions. However, the New York Times emphasizes that it would be naive to rely on such assurances from Trump, as neither Russia will take them seriously nor will it meaningfully strengthen Ukraine’s security. According to the author, instead of this approach, Ukraine should focus on demanding concrete measures that directly increase the country’s defense capability.

Trump and the role of agreements

Based on this analysis, doubts about Trump’s adherence to any security guarantees begin with his record during his presidency. The article notes that despite occasional threats, Trump has never shown a desire to confront Russia directly, especially militarily. According to the New York Times, over the past year, Trump has significantly reduced US military and financial aid to Ukraine, accepted Russia’s narrative of the war to such an extent that he even blamed Ukraine for starting it, and has repeatedly talked about the possibility of expanding economic cooperation between the US and Russia. The article argues that if Ukraine cannot rely on Trump’s support even in the face of overt aggression, it is unrealistic to expect him to stick to a security commitment in more ambiguous situations.

The article also clarifies that including such a guarantee on paper will not necessarily bind Trump. The New York Times points to his long record, both as an economist and as president, of abandoning or revising agreements. The American media recalls that Trump has repeatedly said about NATO’s Fifth Clause, this collective defense commitment is valid only if the allies “pay their share”. He even said that Russia can do “whatever it wants” with NATO members who are in debt to him; Statements that raise doubts about his commitment to the security of allies.

According to the New York Times, drafts discussed between US and Ukrainian officials limit security guarantees to a “significant, deliberate and sustained” attack by Russia. The author warns that such a restriction would allow Trump to dismiss further Russian attacks as trivial, accidental or temporary and renege on his commitment. The article considers Trump’s acceptance of Russia’s claim about Ukraine’s attack on one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s residences as an example of this approach; An attack that Ukraine has denied involvement in.

Zelensky should focus on concrete achievements

Further, the article concludes that exchanging Ukraine’s strategic territories with such a dubious guarantee is a risky move. The New York Times advises that Zelensky should focus on concrete achievements in negotiations; Including access to more than 200 billion dollars of frozen Russian assets in Europe, America and Japan, receiving large arms packages, regaining control of the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant and attracting American investment in Ukraine.

In conclusion, The New York Times writes that Zelensky’s focus on American security guarantees is understandable, but ultimately counterproductive and even dangerous. According to this newspaper, instead of relying on promises that are described as “empty and unreliable”, Ukraine should focus on the real strengthening of its defense and economic power.

end of message