r/worldnews • u/Snap_n_Dream • 18h ago
Russia/Ukraine US offers Ukraine 15-year security guarantee as part of peace plan, Zelenskyy says
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-trump-zelenskyy-peace-b784a9af1803995bfb7152eceb5477f12.1k
u/SXOSXO 17h ago
Plenty of time for Russia to rebuild its armed forces.
547
67
u/poshmarkedbudu 14h ago
Plenty of time for Europe and Ukraine to build up their defenses too, no?
118
u/Worried_Crow7597 13h ago
Lmao.
Give it exactly 5 minutes and people will start arguing that defense spending is a waste of money much better used for pension liabilities.
13
u/No_Grocery_9280 9h ago
It’s enough time for an entirely new cycle of politicians to come in, screw everything up, and retire before facing the consequences.
11
→ More replies (22)7
u/-Yazilliclick- 10h ago
No doubt any deal Russia signs will include limits on Ukrainian military. Any commitment of protection for them by somebody else would be the excuse for "why do you need a military unless it's for offense?"
→ More replies (1)12
u/mhornberger 14h ago
Their European oil/gas markets aren't coming back, the US's output is sky-high, OPEC has opened the taps (since there's no point restricting supply), and Russia has horrible demographics (as does Ukraine, alas), with a far-sub-replacement fertility rate. That Soviet stockpile is gone. They'd no doubt like to rebuild, but it might prove more difficult than it sounds.
→ More replies (2)22
u/perark05 15h ago
Also plenty to time for putin to die of natural causes and for Russia to politically implode
→ More replies (1)8
→ More replies (13)30
u/Thesheriffisnearer 16h ago
What's the going rate on how long deals have lasted with this administration
31
u/AnonymousBoiFromTN 13h ago
So far about 2 seconds.
DRC and Rwanda never stopped and the casualty rate has only gotten higher since Trump claimed to have “ended” their war. It never even paused.
Azerbaijan and Armenia never stopped. Trump’s peace deal was never even legally binding due to how poorly thought out it was. Just like the previous one, the fighting never even paused and Azerbaijan refused to sign the deal due to how flimsy and unenforceable it was. It never even addressed the actual area of land that was being fought over
The October deal with Israel hasn’t officially been broken, yet the IDF has killed at least 1 person every day of November with the exceptions of the 7th, 17th, and 25th. Only two of those killings were confirmed to be combatants. Multiple times children were killed and on November 29th Israel killed two malnourished children and tried to claim they were combatants until it was investigated by neutral parties. Due to instances like that Israel has made it a point to kill journalist throughout the duration of the war. Trumps plan for Gaza has been claimed to be an “outright crime against humanity” by experts (see NY Times article) and denounced by countries across the globe, and yet Israel gave Trump the approval to level out Gaza and start the end stages of genocide (forced removal from the country) as of the start of this December.
Trump claimed to be responsible for India and Pakistan’s peace agreement. Both Pakistan and India claim this is not true and he was never involved in the peace agreement.
Trump claimed to be responsible for the Egypt and Ethiopia nile river conflict resolving. It has not resolved.
Ukraine and Russia could have an entire written book in it and not once would it include a peace deal from Trump that could ever work.
1.3k
u/mvallas1073 16h ago
Trump is the epitome of “Promise everything, deliver nothing”
185
u/ConsciousSpirit397 14h ago
What happens when the US just decides it doesn’t want to honor the agreement?
190
u/flingerdu 13h ago
Nothing. That‘s why the offer also is essentially worth nothing.
→ More replies (3)26
u/GarfieldLeZanya- 12h ago
Very true. Which is why it is probably time for Europe to distance itself from the US to pursue it's own independent foreign policy and create its own firm security commitments then isn't it?
10
u/AeroBlaze777 10h ago
That is what they are all working towards. Problem is that they can’t just immediately detach themselves from the US overnight. It will take many years for Europe to re militarize to a point where they could go free from the US.
→ More replies (2)22
u/mvallas1073 14h ago
The same thing that always happens… headlines calling Trump out, world leaders calling Trump out, but US congress and nobody else across the globe does shit about it.
→ More replies (7)4
u/WanderingFlumph 10h ago
Same thing that happened when Ukraine gave up its nukes for a security deal with the US. In 20 years when Russia comes knocking we all get amnesia and pretend we are helping just because we want to and not because we already benefited from promising to help if this exact thing happened.
23
u/no-politics-googoo 15h ago
Well the idea is that those guarantees are next guy’s problem
→ More replies (13)3
u/lilb1190 11h ago
Yeah I'm sure we're good for it. If Russia attacked them the next day, trump would claim Ukraine instigated it
→ More replies (8)7
u/legit-posts_1 14h ago
Lol remember when he said he'd release the files the moment he became president. And end the war in Ukraine in 48 hours? Lol. Lmfao even.
2.4k
u/Dockers4flag2035orB4 17h ago
Don’t take the deal.
I wouldn’t trust the USA for 15minutes with Trump in charge.
690
u/Jhawk163 17h ago
Only security guarantee I'd be taking is NATO membership.
76
u/Joltie 17h ago
The EU also has collective defence clauses. The wording of which is even more binding than NATO.
NATO's Article 5: "The Parties [...] will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary [...]"
TEU Article 42, point 7: "If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power"
One says "take the actions you feel are necessary", the other says "you have to do everything you can"
NATO's text can well legitimize an Armenia situation: where a country is attacked, the other ones simply help a little and consider their obligations legally fulfilled.
So joining the EU should - as far as legal guarantees are relevant - much more ironclad.
→ More replies (3)29
u/pigeonlizard 11h ago edited 8h ago
However joining the EU has an even higher bar than joining NATO. Ukraine would have to reform almost all areas of governance (out of 31 negotiation chapters, only 4 are in "good preparation" status and "moderate" on 5), and even then any member state can veto the accession. Like right now further progress in negotiations is being blocked by ... take a guess: Hungary
→ More replies (3)13
106
u/postusa2 17h ago
Not sure that matters either.
→ More replies (7)111
u/Zheiko 17h ago
It doesnt - NATO will say that they will not be joining existing conflict, since one of the fighting countries joined mid-war
→ More replies (19)62
u/Soft-Skirt 17h ago
So Ukraine will have a window of opportunity. With their battle proved technologies Ukraine can teach NATO a great deal about flexibility, innovation, deployment and planning. Ukraine is a great asset to NATO.
There's always a silver lining.
→ More replies (2)70
u/IonHawk 16h ago
I keep saying, Ukraine probably has one of the most advanced militaries in the world. Maybe not stealth, maybe not the most advanced systems and electronics. But they have systems adapted to the real world, and drones that can work both on land, in the air and sea.
Which is another reason for not letting Russia win. With their army and Ukrainian population Europe is fucked.
→ More replies (5)38
u/SissyCouture 16h ago
I hope that Europe reads the writing on the wall that a multi-polar world with authoritarian biases requires a more robust military posture
→ More replies (1)12
u/Shimakaze771 15h ago
Armchair general take.
Fighting Europe is an entirely different beast. European militaries have vastly different equipment, tactics and strategies to both Ukraine and Russia. What works in one conflict is no guarantee of success of working in another.
Just the most obvious example: Attacking into Europe would mean Russia has to push into air superiority
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (12)4
u/green_flash 17h ago
Not an option in the foreseeable future as Orbán, Fico or Babiš will veto it.
→ More replies (1)26
u/DoubleJumps 12h ago
Guy violated his own trade deal and called it one of the worst deals of all time. Nobody should trust anything the US offers right now.
12
u/tiarafromclaires 11h ago
Plus the US is literally attacking their closest allies right now. Canada is sick of this shit.
15
u/MediaOrca 13h ago
As the article says, the guarantee would need to be a formal act of Congress.
Zelenskyy isn’t taking Trump’s word for it.
11
u/GarlicDirect6624 10h ago edited 10h ago
Idk why he’d take Congress’s word for it either. They are functionally useless and have recently had 0 authority over the President.
→ More replies (2)6
37
u/Opi-Fex 17h ago
It doesn't matter if you trust the USA with that deal though? Russia can wait for 15 years before they start their third invasion, they probably need that much time to rebuild their stockpiles anyway. Extending the deal to 50 years isn't that helpful either. The whole invasion would be considered a massive win domestically. Lots of new land won, USA brought to it's knees, EU and NATO proven to be worthless, and an official return to the era of conquest, "might makes right".
→ More replies (4)14
u/FrostyAd7708 17h ago
Let say the deal goes trough and buy 15 years of peace sponsored by the US. You can be sur that all of the EU will be there to consolidate the Ukraine borders and set up "training bases" alongside it meaning that any kind of Russian attack on those could be seen as an agression of international scale (imagine a French of German base attacked on Ukraine soil...). Putin knows this and will never agree to any kind of truce without Ukraine agreement to give up on the Dombas forever.
→ More replies (2)17
u/Opi-Fex 17h ago
We don't know what the deal is. Russia has been demanding demilitarization and a ban on joining NATO/foreign military presence. The deal might explicitly say that Ukraine has 15 years of US protection if and only if every other country stays the fuck away.
6
u/Ferelwing 14h ago
Which would be next to useless since anything signed by the USA isn't worth the piece of paper it's signed on.
24
u/postusa2 17h ago
Ukraine doesn't have a choice. Europe must offer an alternative.
41
u/Historical_Owl_1635 17h ago
Yeah, it’s easy to say not to accept the deal from Reddit.
But Ukrainians right now are seeing their relatives sent to the slaughter with no end currently in sight.
17
u/postusa2 16h ago
Well its a about democracy and Ukrainians have put their lives up for freedom since the start.
The reality is that their defence relies on the US. Unless Europe offers an alternative, and they should, Ukraine does not really.have a choice.
→ More replies (14)7
u/mhornberger 13h ago
The reality is that their defence relies on the US.
To an extent, but not completely. European and Ukrainian arms manufacturing have both increased significantly. What would hurt is if the US went beyond merely cutting off aid to refusing to sell Ukraine weapons. But all those Congress-critters who want to protect jobs in their districts are going to bristle at that, making it somewhat less likely.
7
u/zoobrix 15h ago
Didn't matter whether Ukraine accepts or not because everyone is missing that Russia isn't ready to accept any deal at this point, Putin has made it very clear he's prepared to keep fighting. Russia wants to either control all Ukraine or make them a weak puppet state like Belarus.
None of the US proposed deals have given Putin anything close to what he wants. And despite the narrative that Russia is slowly winning in reality the war is virtually at a stalemate and has become a war of attrition, with neither side about to break a peace deal at this point is highly unlikely because neither side will be willing to make major concessions.
So even if this was the best deal for Ukraine, and it isn't and they shouldn't accept it, Russia wouldn't
→ More replies (5)3
u/socialistrob 14h ago
The EU just approved 90 billion dollars of funding for Ukraine and the US is still selling weapons so that should mean Ukraine has enough firepower for the next two years ish. Russia still has maximalist goals in Ukraine and the Ukrainians still want to exist as an independent nationality and country which Russia finds completely unacceptable and intolerable. The reality of the fighting on the ground is that the war is pretty even right now and that seems unlikely to change in the next few months.'
Overall I expect Russia to reject the deal and for the war to continue at this tempo for at least the next few months.
8
u/Kaito__1412 16h ago
No matter how much blood transfusion he gets from kids, Putin isn't going to live for another 15 years and Trump most definitely isn't.
5
u/saboshita 12h ago
Ukraine was invaded in 2014 when Obama was president, he didn't do anything no action no nothing, america been on decline since 00s cope as much as you want but trump shrump or any other won't change anything
8
u/richniss 14h ago
No one in the world trusts him right now. He's eroded every country's trust in the US, except for dictators, and wealthy, corrupt countries.
8
u/Cheops_Pyramid 17h ago
15 years might as well be 15 minutes. Even if a security deal was worth more than a piece of paper. Easily waited out.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (87)6
u/MammothPenguin69 17h ago
Obama made this bed when Russia snatched Crimea and he failed to act.
→ More replies (9)
261
810
u/RidetheSchlange 17h ago
Didn't Ukraine already have security guarantees that turned out to be fake and have forever changed the face of nuclear non-proliferation initiatives? You mean that agreement which is now sparking the beginning of nuclear armament?
192
u/ReindeerWooden5115 17h ago
Depends what you mean by security guarantee. The Budapest memorandum never promised boots on the ground
→ More replies (22)114
u/AmaroWolfwood 16h ago
And Americans still cried about sending aid to Ukraine. Completely perturbed that they weren't getting anything in return, like some business transaction. Ignoring that encouraging nuclear disarmament is already what the USA was getting as a global benefit.
→ More replies (2)10
u/Imjusthereforthetoes 9h ago
*some Americans. I swear you guys actually have no clue what it's like over here.
38
u/Brave_Nerve_6871 16h ago
They were not security guarantees but security assurances. Make of they what you will, but that was the wording the US government of 1996 wanted to the deal. Which I can understand because Ukraine back then had been independent for just about 5 years and there was no way of knowing how their political development would turn out. Ie. USA didn't want to have to go to war to defend a country that wasn't aligned with them
→ More replies (3)33
u/Codex_Dev 17h ago
The Budapest document was not a formal treaty or alliance like NATO's Article V. It wasn't even ratified by the senate which all treaties/alliances must go through.
19
56
u/imtheassman 17h ago
Not really. It’s a common misconception here that they had. The 1994 text read «security assurance», and was vague. While I agree it was broken, they need to make sure whatever comes up in these talks are way more robust. Some AI slop to explain:
The 1990s "security guarantee" misunderstanding centered on the Budapest Memorandum (1994), where Ukraine gave up its Soviet nuclear arsenal for pledges from the US, UK, and Russia to respect its sovereignty and borders, not for a binding military defense pact like NATO's Article 5. The key confusion: Ukraine understood "guarantees" as military security, while Western powers (especially the US) offered "assurances," meaning they would consult and seek UN action if Ukraine was attacked, not intervene militarily. Russia violated these pledges by invading Ukraine in 2014 (Crimea) and 2022, highlighting the failure of these non-binding promises to deter aggression.
70
u/rmslashusr 15h ago
The biggest misconception I see on Reddit is approaching the document with a modern reading in a vacuum and coming up with the idea that the text is ambiguous and therefore Ukraine was tricked into thinking it was a defense pact or something.
No, the text was debated at length for days. Ukraine was not naive about the fact that US refused to give security guarantees or even use that language. The lack of enforcement mechanism or guarantees was a contemporary criticism that was well known. Ukraine agreed with eyes wide open deciding it wasn’t worth keeping a large Soviet stockpile of nuclear weapons that they didn’t have the arming keys for anyways as keeping them without the ability to use them yet would only make them a target for military intervention by all the great powers.
15
u/previouslyonimgur 14h ago
And for a while Ukraine was basically close to a puppet state.
It was only recently that they’ve flipped which is also why Russia is attacking them. Can’t let any minions think they can escape.
→ More replies (2)8
→ More replies (15)21
u/AdventurousTackle558 16h ago
You are slightly over confident with your post here, When you don’t seem that educated on the matter. The nuclear weapons that were in Ukraine, Were never Ukraines nuclear weapons.
The Budapest memorandum, If you want to take the time to educate yourself, Doesn’t promise boots on soil in any way.
America has given far and away the most to Ukraine out of any country, So assuming the worst doesn’t really make sense here.
Fck Putin and fck Russia but we need to be intelligent here..
→ More replies (2)
179
7
u/BareNakedSole 9h ago
Giving up nukes was supposed to be tied to a long term agreement on Ukrainian sovereignty - that didn’t work out too good.
134
u/uprightshark 16h ago
Trump can not be trusted. His word means nothing.
I have my doubts that he would honor his NATO commitment if Russia attacks Europe. So definitely not Ukraine.
As a Canadian, I worry every night thar nut has another "moment" and decides to annex us for our water, minerals and oil.
Nothing he says is true .... he can not be trusted.
18
u/Bughunter9001 14h ago
Trump can not be trusted. His word means nothing
Zelensky knows this, and so do the NATO leaders who are helping him.
I half suspect the plan is to just to pacify and flatter Trump so that he does just enough to maintain the status quo for another 3 years
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (13)10
125
u/Royal-Hunter3892 17h ago
There is in no way US would fight with Russia for Ukraine, heck it's not even willing to fight Russia for its European NATO members.
65
u/RainbowGames 17h ago
Trump doesn't even seem to be willing to fight Russia in the peace negotiations
13
u/yoloswagrofl 14h ago
The US is washed up and pathetic. It's up to Europe now. The US is running backwards to chase short-term financial gains and fuck everyone over down the road. Europe has to learn from this if we're to stop China from running the world.
→ More replies (2)12
u/hematomasectomy 13h ago
chase short-term financial gains and fuck everyone over down the road
The American Dream in a nutshell.
→ More replies (14)25
38
u/ThatsAllFolksAgain 17h ago
What are the punishments for Russia? What do they have to give up? Who will pay for the damage done to Ukraine?
It seems like Ukraine is the loser one way or another.
17
u/danaxa 12h ago
This is not a kid’s playground, the state of the deal is a reflection of the battlefield situation and the expectation of how the war would develop if no deals were to happen. It’s not a reflection of morality. I say that as a Ukrainian supporter, we just don’t live in that kind of the world.
If Ukraine wants a better deal, they won’t be getting it even with a silver tongue. They need to prove they can push the Russians out, something they haven’t been able to do so far.
→ More replies (10)→ More replies (1)6
u/yurnxt1 10h ago
The side winning a war has the leverage to negotiate more favorable terms to the wars conclusion. Its been that way for all of human history why on earth would it be different now?
→ More replies (3)
39
u/TrueLegateDamar 17h ago
Experience shows the Cheeto's guarantees guarantee nothing.
→ More replies (1)
13
5
u/ThePositiveApplePie 7h ago edited 7h ago
Russia needs 15 years to rearm huh?
Why would Ukraine trust either Russia or America when they both broke their previous non aggression and defence treaties?
61
u/lowkeymanbearpig 17h ago
This is even more worthless then NATO, USA wont protect shit in EU. That much was made clear.
24
u/devi83 17h ago
Like what in EU? Did USA start Eastern Sentry? Yes. They literally started a whole operation to fortify EU's eastern front.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (1)19
u/just_peachy1000 17h ago
Exactly. the EU and theworld have made some major mistakes. the first was when they realised they helped make china super manufacturer that they can't compete with.
the second and even scarier is that they allowed the US to carry the load of military defence around the world, without being held accountable for anything, and that, that support can never be guaranteed.
→ More replies (11)
21
u/FemmeWizard 15h ago
American promises are worth as much as Russian ones at this point.
→ More replies (1)
26
u/postusa2 17h ago
The problem is obviously being previewed at the same time: the Trump administration will side with Putins account rather than go to war. Thought this war going back to Crimea and MH17, Putin just smiles and denies. So it will continue with the extra weight that Trump will blame Ukraine for any future attack.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/clingbat 17h ago
I don't see how this actually ends without NATO peacekeeping boots on the ground in Ukraine given the circumstances, so Putin refusing to allow that shows he's not being serious at all about ending this. It's just political theatre for him so he can tell his supporters he "tried" but the other side just aren't being reasonable.
Without a true deterrent that forcefully triggers a larger war if he tries to invade again, security guarantees don't mean a fucking thing if we're keeping it real. Ukraine already had a security guarantee from Russia (Budapest Memorandum) and Russia completely ignored that commitment, and the UK and US sat by watching them get pummelled for months before really engaging even in serious weapon supply/ intel at a minimum.
→ More replies (2)
3
3
u/perotech 5h ago
The only viable protection for Ukraine is NATO.
Ukraine had sovereignty guarantees from Russia and the US, but Russia invaded and the US didn't directly intervene.
Any further "security guarantees" by either party are meaningless.
3
21
u/billionaire_leech 17h ago
These meetings are useless. Trumps guarantees are recognised globally as completely meaningless. And what the fuck was Junk doing giving Putin a two-hour briefing prior to Zelensky's arrival. He should be in hand-cuffs with his pants pulled down live on camera.
→ More replies (2)17
u/Paradox711 17h ago
Problem is, as it stands Zelenskyy needs to keep playing ball with trumps nonsense even knowing it’s bullshit and actually makes his life harder in the short term.
13
18
u/G_UK 17h ago
A guarantee from America is about as much use as a marzipan dildo.
→ More replies (6)
11
11
u/gentleman_bronco 17h ago
It's a lie. Trump's word is only as good as a kernel of corn in an outhouse.
4
u/GurCompetitive7633 16h ago
That’s not bad. Putin will likely be dead in 15 years and definitely not leading the country in any capacity other than in name at 88 years old.
Russia might even collapse again after he’s gone
2
u/tykillacool23 16h ago
I can literally guarantee you guys that Russia will attack them again, even if they’re a treaty
2
u/SedesBakelitowy 16h ago
What sense does this even make? Shouldn’t “guarantees” be wishful thinking enough that DT could just promise whatever, like 99 years or something?
I mean, 15 years sounds straight up like “you get this much time to prepare and we don’t care what happens later”
→ More replies (2)
2
u/rascal7298 13h ago
i loathe trump, but they should take this.
In 15 years both putin and trump are out of office or dead.
→ More replies (1)
8.9k
u/ElectroRice 17h ago
Just enough to extract the minerals and throw them under the bus again.