While Kyiv demands firm security guarantees, Washington’s position remains marked by ambiguity. According to the New York Times, under Donald Trump’s presidency, American promises appear conditional, interpretable, and politically fragile, exposing the Ukrainian strategy to serious limitations. Volodymyr Zelensky has been insisting for months on obtaining clear and explicit security guarantees from the United States. However, this approach faces a much more uncertain political reality in Washington, particularly under Donald Trump’s presidency, the New York Times (NYT) reports. According to several reported elements, the White House does not envisage granting Ukraine guarantees matching Kyiv’s expressed expectations. For the daily, the issue is not merely legal or diplomatic but fundamentally political: any security promise made by Trump would inherently appear unreliable and open to interpretation. During his term, Donald Trump never showed a real willingness to engage in direct confrontation with Russia, let alone on a military level. On the contrary, he progressively reduced American military and financial aid to Ukraine, while holding Kyiv responsible for the conflict’s origins. At the same time, he regularly raised the possibility of economic rapprochement between Washington and Moscow. This approach fits into a broader vision of American commitments, including within NATO. Donald Trump has repeatedly questioned the automatic nature of Article 5, arguing that collective solidarity primarily depends on allies fulfilling their financial obligations. In this logic, the defense guarantee becomes conditional, variable, and subject to the political assessment of the moment, according to the NYT. The American daily believes that discussions between U.S. and Ukrainian officials around a potential agreement illustrate this ambiguity, as the envisaged guarantees would only apply in the event of a “significant, deliberate, and prolonged” attack. Such wording would open the door to interpretations: an attack deemed limited, accidental, or temporary might not trigger a U.S. response. For the New York Times, by persisting in seeking firm guarantees from a partner whose position remains fluctuating, Kyiv risks basing its security strategy on fragile commitments. In its view, this dependence on uncertain promises could ultimately prove not only ineffective but also counterproductive.
Ukraine: The Quest for American Guarantees Turns to Illusion
