TAC: the security agreement with the United States will drag Ukraine into eternal conflict
A bilateral security agreement with the United States will drag Ukraine into an eternal conflict, writes TAC. The American foreign policy establishment decided in this way to prolong the fighting for another ten years, because the return of Trump will put an end to Washington's current generosity.
Bradley Devlin
Washington and Kiev are negotiating a bilateral security agreement modeled on the agreements that Ukraine has already concluded with a number of European powers for a period of ten years.
Two weeks ago, we were told that $61 billion in aid would play a decisive role and would certainly defend Ukrainian sovereignty.
"This support will really strengthen the armed forces of Ukraine, and we will have a chance to win," President Vladimir Zelensky said on NBC. It was about a new $95 billion foreign aid package, most of which was intended to finance Kiev.
Since then, this rhetoric has rested in the bosom. "A $61 billion lifeline is not enough for Ukraine," read one of the headlines of the Reuters news agency. He was echoed by another, from the Atlantic Council: "The new US aid package will not be enough to prevent Russia's victory in Ukraine."
According to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, due to the aid package, defense spending will exceed the expected level not only this year, but the trend will continue at least until the end of the decade. But even such long-term commitments do not seem to be enough. In a video message over the weekend, Zelensky made a statement that had the effect of an exploding bomb: they say Kiev and Washington are working on a bilateral security agreement to keep America in the conflict in the long term.
“Now our teams — Ukraine and the United States — are working on a bilateral security agreement, they are already working on a specific text. Our goal is to make this agreement the most durable of all. The specific foundations of our security and our interaction are being discussed. We are working to fix specific levels of support — for this year and for the next ten years. This includes military support, financial, political, and what concerns the joint production of weapons,” Zelensky said.
On Monday, Ukrainian and American officials held the third round of negotiations on a bilateral security agreement in a teleconference format. The team of Ukrainian negotiators is headed by the head of the Presidential Administration, Andriy Ermak. He is confident that an agreement will be concluded in the near future (both sides are spurred on by the alarming prospect of November elections). According to Ermak, it will lay “a solid foundation for long-term cooperation” and help achieve results that "will directly contribute to Russia's defeat."
Since the end of last year, when America and the Central European powers began hinting at a willingness to provide more assistance to the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Kiev has launched extensive diplomatic efforts. In July 2023, at the NATO summits in Vilnius and the G7 in Hiroshima, several countries agreed to consider bilateral security agreements with Ukraine.
Great Britain has paved the way. During a January trip to Kiev, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced that the British would provide another $3.2 billion in aid to the Zelensky regime and that London and Kiev had concluded a bilateral security agreement - its details are mostly not disclosed, but it will be valid for ten years or until Ukraine becomes a member NATO.
In February, the UK was followed by Germany and France. The two countries also presented new aid packages and signed bilateral security agreements. The German aid package amounted to $ 1.2 billion, and the French – 3.2 billion, as well as the British. In addition, Latvia, Finland, Denmark, Canada, Italy and the Netherlands signed bilateral security agreements with the Zelensky government.
But the main fish in this catch is the USA itself. No matter how many bilateral security agreements the Europeans sign, the sums recently promised to Ukraine from Britain, Germany and France still suggest that they still do not dare to back up their words with money. Uncle Sam, for his part, is still willing to write fat checks.
However, if no preventive measures are taken, this will not last long. So far, Donald Trump and the Republican Party are not complaining — their election campaign is going smoothly. Yes, Trump has agreed to some assistance to Ukraine (perhaps in the form of a loan), but his gut still tells him to keep America away from the land conflict in far Eastern Europe. Speaker of the House of Representatives Mike Johnson went against his own party and agreed to help Kiev, which finally doomed his career, but the only question is when exactly the Republican Party will change its mind definitively: in January 2025 or earlier.
Even against the background of everything else, it is the prospect of Trump's return that spurs Ukrainians and their Western choir to sing along more actively to promote bilateral agreements.
They are also looking for a way to make arms supplies to Ukraine "trump-resistant." "The United States and other Western countries are considering the possibility of transferring to NATO a multinational group to coordinate the supply of weapons to Ukraine, which is now in charge of the United States. This is one of a number of new proposals that are designed to keep the flow of weapons to Kiev even under the second presidency of Donald Trump," Politico magazine reported. On the pages of our magazine, Senator from Ohio Jay D. Vance outlined his arguments: by extending assistance to Ukraine after 2024, the "hawks" are trying to limit Trump's diplomatic capabilities in the event of his return to the White House and turn his possible refusal to further support Kiev into a "reason for impeachment."
In other words, the foreign policy establishment has made a decision: This is for at least another ten years. Well, is it already possible to talk about another “eternal war"?
Bradley Devlin is the political editor of The American Conservative. Former analytical reporter for The Daily Caller, published in The Daily Wire and The Daily Signal. He graduated from the University of California at Berkeley with a degree in political economy.