6 ms·
It seems like Ukraine is insisting on a “security guarantee.” Can someone explain how the U.S. providing a security guarantee wouldn’t increase the risk of amer
by rayiner 2y ago
It seems like Ukraine is insisting on a “security guarantee.” Can someone explain how the U.S. providing a security guarantee wouldn’t increase the risk of american boots on the ground in Ukraine?
- acjacobson 2y agoOf course it increases the risk - it's the whole point of the ask.
- rayiner 2y agoWhy is nobody being open about that? Because I suspect the appetite for that is low. Germany is about closer to Russia than we are—how many Germans are willing to go die in Ukraine?
- Kim_Bruning 2y agoA recent poll suggests Germans are currently marginally in favor of sending peacekeepers. The point of a peacekeeping mission is -of course- to prevent further war by means of deterrence (though there's always still a small risk, of course), so hopefully no one goes to die there. Currently Germany just had elections, so a clear unified statement from the new-government-in-formation is not yet available. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/thin-majority-germans-back-role-possible-ukraine-peacekeeping-mission-2025-02-18/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/thin-majority-germans-b...
- llamaimperative 2y agoNobody being open about how deterrence works? Probably because no one thought it needed to be explained.
- _DeadFred_ 2y agoHow this works is pretty common knowledge. The world has been using peacekeepers for quite a while. But you know that and you know you are just concern trolling.
- rayiner 2y agoThe pro-Ukraine people I know have been pitching our support as “just sending them old weapons we don’t use anyway.” Even the risk of U.S. soldiers on the ground would be a massive escalation of our commitment.
- _DeadFred_ 2y agoWow what a slimy tactic. Those people are taking in regards to 'the amount of dollars sent'. You know you are misrepresenting that in your above statement. Completely disingenuous just like I said about your previously. You are a concern troll.
- hollerith 2y agoHave peacekeepers ever been used though to deter a great power?
- mehphp 2y agoHe’s insisting on something that the U.S. already agreed to… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
- rayiner 2y agoFrom my reading, that says we agreed not to invade Ukraine, not that we agreed to put american boots on the ground to defend Ukraine.
- maxerickson 2y agoDoes "nuclear weapons" attach to the first half of the or in section 4? Seems they wrote it poorly... "victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used" You are also engaged in some sophistry, where you are acting as if the hypothetical obligation you are discussing is the only possible obligation. Selling aging weapons stock is pretty clearly assistance, and it isn't exactly boots on the ground.
- rayiner 2y agoDon’t randomly accuse people of “sophistry.” Zelensky is publicly demanding a security guarantee, and sprung that on Trump at the meeting. I didn’t say there couldn’t be other support, but the security guarantee is what I’m talking about because that seems to be critical.
- maxerickson 2y agoWhy are you saying it's random? Trump isn't meeting the existing obligations and you are talking about how problematic Ukraine's condition for new agreements would be.
- rayiner 2y agoWe have no obligation to support Ukraine under that memorandum.
- spiderfarmer 2y agoThey just want the US to keep their word on promises already made. Is that so unreasonable? They gave up their nukes for it.
- rayiner 2y agoYou’re saying we already gave them the equivalent of NATO Article 5?
- spiderfarmer 2y agoNot equivalent, but the USA is in violation as of today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
- ceejayoz 2y agoThe USA is not in violation of that. All of points 1-6 have been complied with. Russia is in clear violation of it, but it never promised US military intervention. All it promises is we'd go to the Security Council about it. The memorandum didn't really anticipate one of the signatories with a UN veto being the aggressor.
- spectra72 2y agoThe UK, France and China also signed that same agreement.
- Kim_Bruning 2y agoAn actual lasting peace deal requires some sort of security guarantee, else it's not really a "peace deal", but rather something more like a capitulation. If US political leadership didn't have at least some solution for security in mind to begin with, then they wouldn't have been negotiating in good faith. That said, Security Guarantees don't necessarily directly mean boots on the ground, certainly not straight away. It could mean a deterrence framework where there a clear commitments that certain actions would mean certain responses, which itself reduces the chance those responses are necessary. Security guarantees can specify escalating measures before reaching an actual troop deployment. And European nations have already promised to provide the initial boots on the ground, though they really would like an American backstop. The deterrence aspect is crucial - formal security frameworks often prevent conflict precisely because they make aggression too costly, reducing the likelihood they'd ever need to be activated.
- rayiner 2y agoThat makes it seem like a security guarantee would risk deeper US involvement, as eventually happened with Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq I. It seems to me that your logic would make the Iraq War quite defensible. Iraq had already invaded Kuwait. We had already guaranteed Kuwait’s security, so we would’ve had to send troops if Saddam invaded again. So if the CIA was correct that Saddam was rearming, there was a logic to deposing him now and resolving the situation on terms favorable to us, instead of reactively getting involved at a future date. Without the benefit of hindsight—knowing Saddam didn’t have WMDs—it seems like the only basis for opposing the Iraq War under your logic would have been to quibble about how much of an affirmative step Saddam had to take before our obligation to put boots on the ground kicked in.
- Kim_Bruning 2y agoYou're right, it really depends on what the security guarantees are, how they're stated, and whether they're credible. As an example of a case that has worked, the mutual security guarantees within NATO have prevented WWIII so far. (knock on wood) Obviously, we should be trying to go for something more like the latter. Alternately, of course, no security guarantees, and both sides continue to fight. China is already closely watching how the west responds to Ukraine, with potential implications for Taiwan. This increases the likelihood that American security commitments/requirements will eventually be tested more directly.
- openasocket 2y agoIn the near term, Ukraine wants continued delivery of military equipment. In the end game, they want any sort of peace treaty ending this war to include NATO/EU/US support. Ideally, in the form of NATO membership. This is crucial to ensure that any peace deal would be lasting. Putin has repeatedly stated that he does not believe a Ukrainian state has a right to exist, and has engaged in military operations against them for over a decade at this point. There is no chance a peace deal will endure without some sort of security guarantee from another power.
- rstuart4133 2y agoTrump is insisting on Ukraine paying for donations already freely given for the war (ie, they were gifts from the USA). They proposed they be paid for with mineral rights, and give nothing back in return. The minerals they asking for are worth far more then the USA's donations top date. Ukraine's initial reaction was a flat "no". Then the Ukraine changed their minds and said, well actually you can have the mineral rights for free - because we desperately want this war to end. So you can have them if you give us a security guarantee that prevents Russia from overrunning the place. Otherwise we must continue to fight for our homeland. Trump has responded "no", because he's only interested in peace. I guess it makes about as much sense as anything else he's done.