Since the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the US and the European powers have provided Ukraine with tremendous financial and military support. The prospect of the US’ support system upholding is decreasing due to President Donald Trump’s foreign policy and his relationship with President Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump believes that this war should end immediately even if it means Ukraine making significant concessions. On the other hand, Zelensky does not want Ukraine to be on the losing side following a potential deal. This is why Zelensky is asking the US for major security guarantees in return for coming to terms with Trump. Zelensky has told Trump on several occasions that the US’ continuous support is needed because Putin is known for breaking agreements. The current dilemma between Zelensky and Trump has resulted in Washington considering pausing military and financial aid to Ukraine. Trump’s current position with regards to Ukraine is partially shaped by the views of his domestic base, as many Americans believe that too much of the government’s financial resources are being sent to Ukraine for a war that does not benefit them in any way. They also make the argument that the US is not obligated to help defend Ukraine, although this argument can, to an extent, be challenged.
In 1994, the Budapest Memorandum, which was a series of agreements between the US, the United Kingdom, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, was signed. A component of this agreement gave Ukraine certain security assurances in exchange for its surrender of nuclear weapons. The agreement states that all the signatories should respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and not use military force or economic coercion against it. The American negotiators promised Ukraine that if they were invaded, the US would take an interest and act in their defence. Ukraine agreed to this memorandum because of the mentioned promise given to them by the then newly sole hegemon of the international stage. It is because of this agreement that one could argue that the US is obligated to help defend Ukraine, yet there are factors that challenge this notion. The fact is that the Budapest Memorandum is a security assurance, and not a security guarantee. The signatories all stated that they will respect Ukraine’s borders; however, nowhere in the agreement is it mentioned that the US and Uk are required to guarantee Ukraine’s security against Russia. Article five of the NATO agreement is a treaty that clearly is a security guarantee and makes it a requirement for the signatories to get militarily involved if a member gets attacked. The problem is the verbal promise that the Americans made Ukraine in regards to their protection. The US should still protect Ukraine if they want to continue being an effective leader on the international stage. If they still want to lead the liberal order and maintain its status as the dominant international order, they need to keep such critical promises while engaging with their allies. Trump’s current posture jeopardizes all existing and future commitments, resulting in losing trust globally. Therefore, keeping this promise to Ukraine should be considered a matter of obligation if they want their version of the free world to prevail. The current description of Trump’s foreign policy will reduce the US’ bargaining power on the international stage and lead to more nations deciding to get closer to China and Russia. It is important to mention that keeping a solid reputation among your allies is not the only reason why the US needs to keep its promise to Ukraine. The old argument regarding the strategic importance of keeping control of Ukraine is still valid. If Ukraine gets weaker and falls under the influence of Russia, the NATO members will find themselves in a precarious situation, especially if Russia decides to continue its expansionist ideology. Ukraine gives Russia a great avenue for future invasions in the region, and the loss of it would significantly limit NATO in terms of being able to deter Russia effectively.
