Casual observers might have misinterpreted Zelensky’s claim as suggesting that the US would extend security guarantees to Ukraine if it withdraws from Donbass even if that doesn’t end the conflict.
Andrew Korybko
Secretary of State Marco Rubio sharply rebuked Zelensky for claiming last week that the US promised Ukraine security guarantees in exchange for withdrawing from Donbass. In his words,
“That’s a lie. I saw him say that and it’s unfortunate he would say
that, because he knows that’s not true. What he was told is the obvious:
security guarantees are not going to kick in until there’s an end to a
war, because otherwise you’re getting yourself involved in the war.”
This clarified a crucial nuance.
Casual observers
might have misinterpreted Zelensky’s claim as suggesting that the US
would extend security guarantees to Ukraine if it withdraws from Donbass
even if that doesn’t end the conflict. The innuendo is that the US
could therefore “get [itself] involved in the war” directly against
Russia and therefore risk World War III over Ukraine. Trump 2.0 has no
interest in that despite the US sparking this proxy war under Biden since it simply inherited a conflict that it never wanted in the first place.
This
doesn’t mean that it won’t exploit the conflict, which it’s already
doing by profiting from selling arms to NATO that are then transferred
to Ukraine and thus perpetuating the conflict with the intent of coercing more concessions
from Russia, just that it doesn’t aim to escalate the conflict to that
point. Of course, the aforesaid approach could inadvertently escalate
the conflict, but the point is that Trump 2.0 doesn’t intend to
purposely escalate it to that level. Clarifying this nuance serves three
purposes.
First, it debunks the false notion that some
might have of this reported quid pro quo risking World War III, which
could scare away on-the-fence voters ahead of the midterms. Second, it
aims to reassure Russia that the US has no such intent, thus maintaining
some degree of trust amidst their recently troubled ties. And third, it
hints to Zelensky that he should agree to end the conflict once Ukraine
loses Donbass, be it by withdrawing or being pushed out, if he wants
security guarantees afterwards.
Although likely
unintentional, Rubio’s clarification of this crucial nuance about Trump
2.0’s position released some of the pent-up anger that he accumulated
towards Zelensky given the harsh language that he employed in his
rebuke, which in turn suggests that the administration is getting fed up
with him. This doesn’t mean that Trump 2.0 is finally ready to coerce Zelensky
into this concession (among possible others), which it could have done
last spring if it really wanted to, but just that tensions are rising.
How
far they might go is anyone’s guess, and expectations about the US
potentially being on the brink of abandoning Ukraine should be tempered
since prior such forecasts over the past year failed to materialize despite arguably being more compelling.
What’s most important for observers to know is that the reportedly
proposed peace sequence of Ukraine withdrawing from Donbass, agreeing to
end the conflict right afterwards, and then receiving security
guarantees from the US remains contentious.
Zelensky
doesn’t want to withdraw from there nor end the conflict, instead
demanding security guarantees while hostilities are ongoing, which Trump
2.0 won’t provide. It prefers to end the conflict through the
abovementioned sequence, but if he refuses, then its prolongation is
still profitable for the US due to arms sales to NATO. Russia still
insists on achieving all of its stated goals in full, but if Ukraine
withdraws from Donbass and agrees to end the conflict afterwards, then
compromises are possible.