Back in February 2025, Present Trump of the United States upbraided the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy about Ukraine being weak, holding no cards, and gambling with World War Three. Trump fears that the Russo-Ukrainian War ends up in a direct confrontation between Russia and the United States. That confrontation, Trump also fears, could escalate into a nuclear exchange. 

The Russians have no fear of a nuclear escalation: both President Putin of Russia and the former Prime Minister, President, and now Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of Russia have repeatedly threatened the use of tactical nuclear weapons in the Russo-Ukrainian War.

The foregoing is the backdrop against which one should question the wisdom of the recent tripartite US-European Union-Ukraine discussions about “security guarantees” for Ukraine post-conflict (“after making peace, armistice, or ceasefire). The threshold question to be answered is about the nature of SGs: Is it a mutual/multilateral defense pact? Is it the same as as “attack on one is attack on all?” Does it simply mean supply of weapons, or it involves also engaging in military operations against the aggressor (Russia, Belarus, Etc.)?

Regardless of the meaning and scope of SGs, it is clear that the triggering of SGs in the event of a future attack on Ukraine would mean the likelihood of active participation of the guarantor(s) on the side of Ukraine. That could trigger of World War Three that Trump fears. 

Because of Trump’s desire to avoid World War Three, especially if it goes nuclear, the chances are that Trump/United States will not fight on the side of Ukraine. I, therefore, do not expect Trump/United States to be a meaningful participant in any Russo-Ukrainian conflict in the future.  

Here is the one question I have: If the United States and/or the “coalition of the willing” are prepared to engage in World War Three over Ukraine in the future under a security guarantee arrangement, why not do it now, before Ukraine is forced to cede vast tracts of its territory to the Russian occupiers as the price for concluding a “peace” agreement?

Nota bene: There is not a treaty of peace or of friendship that Russia has not hesitated to break when its interests dictated, especially when it came to irredentist claim like she has staked to Ukraine.

Previous post regarding broken “guarantees”: https://iroon.com/irtn/blog/20942/khar-to-khari-over-ukraine/ .