Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

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?

View on HN

An 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.

Stop. Dude isn't interested in a real answer, he's concern trolling. He propogandizes his position over and over on this site.

I’m not concern trolling. I don’t want a single U.S. soldier on Ukraine soil. It’s a red line. I’m asking whether a security guarantee increases the risk of that happening.

Ah, ok, it's a red line for you. Good that you make that explicit, but you are being a thrifty with information there.

This site is for curious conversation, so I'd love to see you elucidate a bit further!

What's the nature of the red line?

For instance, Are you worried they'd get hurt? Are you worried about political implications?

Or, does the fact that there are already American volunteers to fighting in Ukraine change your calculus? [1]?

What's your idea on whether this applies to Taiwan too? How about Canada or Greenland?

Is this a red line that is shared by many?

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlgWI0FzjKc "US volunteer soldiers appear in Ukraine frontline footage"

I don’t want the U.S. to bear the cost (in money and lives) of a war that doesn’t directly relate to protecting the american homeland. I think U.S. foreign policy has been a failure since the 1950s—we shouldn’t have gone to war in Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq, etc. The only justifiable war in that time, in my opinion, was Afghanistan, where the Taliban harbored terrorists that had attacked the U.S.

I think the premise of a “rules based international order” and democracy promotion hurts Americans. In Iraq and Syria it led us to overthrow dictators who were brutal to their own people and threatened their neighbors, but who suppressed terrorists that could attack the U.S. It also causes tremendous collateral damage (millions of dead civilians). While I acknowledge that Ukraine presents less risk of those things, to me it’s a test case. If we can’t resist involvement in Ukraine, there is little hope of turning the ship around on American imperialism generally. The next Iraq War will also be billed as a just war.

As of mid 2024, 2/3 of americans opposed sending US troops to Ukraine: https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/ame....

I acknowledge that a security guarantee wouldn’t start with boots on the ground. But there is a historical pattern of deepening involvement where we start out with something like a security guarantee, and that becomes the rope around our ankle that drags us into putting boots on the ground.

You know, fair enough, boy who cries wolf, and then when they go "but this time it's an actual wolf!"; no one listens.

I can sort of get that. I mean it sucks, I think it's wrong this time, mostly because for me it's a bit closer to home and debatably existential; but at least I get where you're coming from.

Some people are worried that this means that Americans also oppose NATO in general and article 5 in particular. Is that the case, or is that like a known pre-existing alliance and a known quantity?

> I don’t want the U.S. to bear the cost (in money and lives) of a war that doesn’t directly relate to protecting the american homeland. I think U.S. foreign policy has been a failure since the 1950s—we shouldn’t have gone to war in Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq, etc.

Why don't you run for office on a platform that "Pax Americana was a huge mistake!"

By the time I was growing up in the 1990s, Korea and Vietnam were widely regarded as mistakes. And then I saw the US make a $6 trillion mistake with the Iraq War. So when Trump called out America’s latest “big fat mistake,” that’s basically what he was running on: https://youtu.be/H4ThZcq1oJQ?si=9Vlf81O3FxQXVoAU

Forest ... trees ....

(And you think Korea was a mistake? Seriously?)

What I find a bit incongruous about this view, is that if we accept it, then we're also accepting the narrative (which may well be true) that the US was the primary cause of the push for Ukraine to join NATO and come under the US sphere of influence. This is basically Putin's claim, and their given reason for the invasion of Ukraine.

So how do you marry that up with the lack of culpability the US is now demonstrating? If you accept it, then surely it is also the primary responsibility of the US to resolve the situation peacefully, which pacifies Russia but also leaves Ukraine in a reasonable position. From everything I understand about Trumps "deal" for Ukraine it does nothing of the sort.

Agreed 100%. No way should any American soldier be sent to fight in that war. It will be a never ending quagmire - both people and money. Full stop.

<rant> And, good luck getting any real discussion from anyone here. Most of the Redditors are here now and have brought their "hate on America" flag to HN. Regardless of how much our President does or how much the US gives, it will never be enough. And, the ironic thing is, many of these "intellectuals" on HN routinely put down our "uneducated" voter population while at the same time pleading for their tax dollars to fund a never ending war. Oh, the hypocrisy! As if their countries are any better.

At best, this war is at a stalemate unless the EU really steps up to the plate to save their neighbor. Imagine, your neighbor's house is burning down all around you, and the best you can do is give a cup of water while shouting at your distant relative across the ocean to send truck loads of water. If anything, they should be ashamed they let their countries fall so behind they have to rely on someone else to help defend their own property. Crazy!

Here's a hint for our EU friends: Step up and help your neighbor! Send all your money to fight the war (that is what you are asking the US tax payers for, right?). Drain your savings accounts, send them your retirement money, send everything you have - until it hurts. Next, go to your closet, put on your fighting boots, and head out to the front lines. The time for taking real action is now. Don't rely on foreign money, governments, boots, equipment, etc. to defend your own property. Rely on _yourselves_ to solve this problem.

</rant-off>

It's worth considering that Europe's military dependence wasn't accidental - it was partly a deliberate outcome of post-WWII American policy. The U.S. has historically benefited from being the primary security provider for Europe, giving it significant influence and strategic advantages. A fully independent European military capability might create a very different geopolitical dynamic.

> No way should any American soldier be sent to fight in that war. It will be a never ending quagmire - both people and money.

You have done that for quite literally the past 20 years in a places where no win condition could be established, and now that you have an 'easy' war, with an actual nation-state adversary that you can defeat both militarily and politically, without a need for guerilla warfare and millions of civilian casualties, suddenly you have issues?

I suspect rtp4me has the same view as Rayiner in this same subthread. These past interventions often didn't work out so well, so why would this one, is what they're asking. And I mean, fair point. I partially disagree, but it's a fair point.

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43261035

That, and there might be a shift going on in the US back from Maritime power thinking to Continental power thinking.

(An essay on the differences)

https://mwi.westpoint.edu/when-maritime-and-continental-powe...

I mean, that was kind of my point. Now that they finally have a 'war' to fight, instead of a dispersed terrorist operation, suddenly it's less appealing, when this is basically a textbook example of a 'winnable' war.

There were no policy objectives in Afghanistan or Iraq, or they were very hard to achieve without decades of sustained presence. Meanwhile they're fairly clear for Ukraine, and arguably easier to achieve, if the Russian military is degraded enough that they pose no threat to Ukraine then the war is won.

Of course that leaves the pesky issue of those nuclear weapons, but I'd find that a much better argument than 'all our previous special military operations were a disaster'.

Yeah, personally, I mostly agree with your assessment as well.

The United States' view on strategy has always had a tension between the maritime power view and the continental power view.

For a maritime power (the US approach we've seen most of recently since WWII ), it's practically a no-brainer to invest heavily in the Ukraine conflict. It allows the US to degrade a rival's military abilities at low cost; it maintains the balance of power in Europe without direct US troop involvement; and it upholds the norms against territorial conquest that benefit maritime powers.

If the US is seeing a resurgence of isolationist/continental thinking, then you get different arguments: The conflict is distant from US territorial interests; border security and domestic concerns become more pressing; and regional conflicts elsewhere become mostly just distractions.

I don’t know if you’ve been following American politics. But the guy who is currently President captured the GOP by basically beheading the next-in-line of the Bush dynasty that was responsible for those “past 20 years.” https://youtu.be/H4ThZcq1oJQ?si=B5JoZGwU6umVjbbu

The criticism of decades of American foreign policy was finally vindicated. So there is very little appetite to give up that achievement by getting embroiled in yet another war that’s billed as “easy” and “just” this time (they all were—remember, “we will be greeted as liberators?”)

> this war is at a stalemate

It is a stalemate because US government wants it to be a stalemate. They never wanted Ukraine to win. Because it can embarrass putin. That's why they send some old equipment, barely enough to slow down Russian troops.

Sending weapons with restrictions to use them against Russians - Ukrainians are fighting with tied hands.

When Germany reoccupied the Rhineland in 1936, British and French forces could easily have rolled to Berlin and deposed Hitler. They didn't, for domestic political reasons that were no less catastrophic for being understandable (war-weary citizenry, plus wishful thinking about Hitler).

The best time to have stood up to Putin was 2014. The next best time is right [expletive] now.

Whats the base rate of dictators being Hitler, and what’s the false positive rate of that approach? That thinking seems like it would’ve gotten us into every late 20th and early 21st war that are widely regarded as mistakes.

100%ish?

Saddam was going to take over Europe? Assad was going to take over Europe?

Only one dictator ever was literally Adolf Hitler but that's a meaningless comparison. Saddam and Assad both tried to do holocausts so in my view that makes them Hitlers. I think that is a much more useful practical definition of "a Hitler" than, you know, being named Adolf and being born in the middle of Europe.

That 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.

You'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.

> though they really would like an American backstop.

It's not a really would like. In all of their speeches by key politicians, European boots on the ground is conditional on US backstop. So it's not happening without US support.

He’s insisting on something that the U.S. already agreed to…

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

From my reading, that says we agreed not to invade Ukraine, not that we agreed to put american boots on the ground to defend Ukraine.

Does "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.

Yes, Nuclear weapons attaches to the first clause.

and if Russia threatens Ukraine with nukes if it joins NATO, is that a nuclear threat?

Yes. And when Russia did that the US was treaty bound to raise the issue of assistance with the security council.

The US met this obligation and exceeded it. The US called an emergency session under resolution 2623.

Exceeded the obligations by acting outside of the UN and security council to provide independent aid in funding.

The memorandum requires that the US do nothing on its own, let alone provide unlimited assistance.

It looks like the memorandum was like the proposed minerals deal where you give up something valuable in exchange for some vague promises?

Don’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.

If I have my dates right,

Macron (president of France) visited the White House on Feb 24 and pointed out that security guarantees would be important and that the US could play an important role providing those guarantees. This discussion ended amicably. [1]

Starmer (Prime Minister of the UK) visited Trump on Feb 27 , and besides handing over an invitation from King Charles, also discussed the fact that there would need to be security guarantees in any particular Ukraine deal. This discussion also ended amicably. [2]

Zelensky (President of Ukraine) then visited on Feb 28 and reiterated the points his colleagues had made. This time something went wrong. [3]

[1] https://apnews.com/article/trump-macron-ukraine-russia-starm...

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/27/trump-starme...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Trump%E2%80%93Zelenskyy_m...

What went wrong is assuming there were good faith talks in the first two instances with Macron and Starmer.

It isn't by chance that even after the talks with Macron, Trump tried to lie in front of him only to be corrected by Macron in the oval office.

Even after being correct, and continues to spin the same lie during the Zelensky talks and after.

The only thing that went wrong was assuming that Trump ever had Ukraine interest in sight, and not Russia interests.

What we witnessed isn't anything new or shocking to anyone who has been following this event.

This had been a recurring behavior from this administration, where there's a theatrical display to show that there might be some understanding, with leaders putting their credibility in the to say there's some alignment, only to have Trump the next day stating the opposite or something completely unaligned with previous statements.

Let's hope this was the the final straw, and just accept that Russia managed to capture the US. Now it's about protecting this from happening elsewhere - Twitter, and other platforms, including alternative media should start to be banned in Europe ASAP.

Why 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.

We have no obligation to support Ukraine under that memorandum.

Under your interpretation.

They just want the US to keep their word on promises already made. Is that so unreasonable? They gave up their nukes for it.

The nukes were never under Ukraine control or possession. It's like saying Turkey has nukes, they don't, they are US nukes.

It was considered enough of a big deal that there was a Treaty about it.

It was a "memorandum", which is actually not a binding treaty as far as I understand.

That's fair, I realised that later.

I think the general point still stands though. And if you read commentary from the time, it was a big deal.

Here comes the Russian propaganda... The nukes belonged to Ukraine. Just like Belarus nukes belonged to them.

What is said by Russian propagandists is that Ukraine didn't have the launch codes - like it was some magical barrier that would prevent Ukraine from deploying the nukes if they wanted to.

Like Ukrainian scientists didn't play a major a role in USSR nuclear development, and didn't have the know how to just use other system to deploy the nukes.

It's part of the Russian propaganda to make Ukrainians into incompetent inferior ethnic group - why do you think they address them by derogatory ethnic slurs like "little Russians"?

Unlike with Turkey, Ukraine could have easily taken complete possession of the nukes existing on its territory and they had enough resources to also take complete control, by replacing the control parts of the nukes, perhaps in at most a few months of work.

The only way in which the Russians could have stopped this would have been to nuke Ukraine before they would have been able to modify the captured nukes, but it is unlikely that this would have been permitted by the other nuclear powers.

> The nukes were never under Ukraine control or possession.

They were literally in their possession. hint: that's why negotiations were required for their transfer to Russia.

You’re saying we already gave them the equivalent of NATO Article 5?

Not equivalent, but the USA is in violation as of today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

The 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.

The UK, France and China also signed that same agreement.

France and China signed separate, individual agreements.

The UK and France have clearly followed (and exceeded, via direct military aid it does not require) the requirements of the memorandum.

I can't find the text of China's agreement.

As has the US with all of their aid.

Yet, the US is the one that is forever chided for being negligent to the terms of the agreement.

> As has the US with all of their aid.

As I've noted upthread.

> Yet, the US is the one that is forever chided for being negligent to the terms of the agreement.

The US has absolutely complied with the Budapest Memorandum's requirements.

Military aid isn't required, it's just a good idea. The recent withdrawal of aid is a betrayal of an ally, but not a violation of the Memorandum.

Of course it increases the risk - it's the whole point of the ask.

Why 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?

A 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-b...

How 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.

The 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.

Wow 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.

Have peacekeepers ever been used though to deter a great power?

Nobody being open about how deterrence works? Probably because no one thought it needed to be explained.

In 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.

Trump 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com