Word & Phrases We Could Do Without

A ‘guarantee’ from Trump?!

Donald Trump, after his Alaska abasement, told European leaders he would be open to offering Ukraine “U.S. security guarantees” to end the war.

No, really.

Ukrainians are all too familiar with “U.S. security guarantees.” After the breakup of the Soviet Union (in which Vladimir Putin learned his trade as a KGB agent), the U.S. gave Ukraine a “security guarantee.”

“[O]n 5 December 1994, at a ceremony in Budapest, Ukraine joined Belarus and Kazakhstan in giving up their nuclear arsenals in return for security guarantees from the United States, the UK, France, China and Russia,” the BBC recalled. At the time, President Clinton declared, “The pledges on security assurances that [we] have given these three nations…underscore our commitment to the independence, the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of these states.” Oh, really. If only the U.S. had consistently stood by that “guarantee” in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea, Ukraine would not still be fighting for its survival.

Ukraine has learned the hard way that U.S. security guarantees are worthless. And when offered under this president, a guarantee is more likely a recipe for extortion (remember the impeachable threat to withhold U.S. arms if Ukraine did not invent dirt on Joe Biden) or a prelude to betrayal (as in agreeing post-summit to stop pressuring Russia for a cease fire).

Donald Trump does not seem committed to upholding the security guarantees already in place with NATO allies. Again and again, he has vacillated, fudged, and shrugged off our most consequential and vital security obligation. To this day, who can be sure he would adhere to the core of our NATO pact, Art. V?

“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.”

It’s absurd to use Trump in the same sentence as “guarantee,” a word defined as: “an agreement by which one person undertakes to secure another in the possession or enjoyment of something.” It is hard to think of a guarantee/pledge/vow/promise that Trump has not broken (e.g., his marriage vows, his oath to uphold the Constitution). He’s broken pledges to release the Epstein files, to end the Russia-Ukraine War on Day One (!), to immediately bring down prices, and to balance the budget (!).

Time magazine’s Phillip Elliott wrote in May: “All politicians make promises they should frankly know are impossible to keep; with Trump, it’s not entirely clear he knows his bill of goods is a fantasy, or which ones the larger public actually wanted him to pursue.” Indeed, Trump does not seem to understand that a guarantee or a promise is something that he must keep, as opposed to something he uses in the moment to get his way, polish his ego, or intimidate others.

It would be one thing for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to trust an honorable U.S. president with the fate of his country. It is quite another to trust one who has already repeatedly betrayed Ukraine (not to mention the United States) and who does not necessarily understand the concept of keeping his word.

Neither domestic or foreign friends nor foes should rely on Trump’s guarantees, oaths, promises, vows, agreements, or—frankly—anything he says. A compulsive liar who is loyal to no one but himself turns out to be a worthless ally and unfit dealmaker.

In the case of the international world order, Trump’s untrustworthiness has profound consequences. U.C. Berkeley professor M. Steven Fish explained in an interview in March that the Trump regime is “abandoning” the post-WWII world order to the benefit of dictators. “Under Trump, the United States is now abandoning its democratic allies in Europe and may well soon do the same to our allies in the Asia-Pacific.” He added: “Trump aims to drive America toward autocracy, and he is reorienting America’s foreign relations to align our country with foreign dictatorships.” The result is disastrous for our allies and ultimately for us:

The key now is that other world leaders, especially among our allies — or, tragically, perhaps I should now say former allies — need to understand that they cannot depend in any way on American security guarantees as long as Trump is in office. Trump has made that crystal clear. And the more quickly they realize that fact and adjust their own defense postures, their own defense spending and their own relations with each other to accommodate that reality, the better for them and for the world.

That’s precisely what the Europeans have done as they learn not to count on the U.S.’s defense umbrella or diplomatic heft. That, in turn, means we are less powerful, less influential, and less respected than at any point since the end of WWII.

When the U.S. cannot keep its promises or credibly guarantee that it won’t change sides when it suits its narcissistic leaders’ personal interests, the world enters what Fish calls a “post-American world.” As he puts it, “We are now in Trump’s world, one in which America is dramatically diminished and, if Trump has his way, becomes just another two-bit autocracy.”

So, no, Zelensky is not about to take the president’s “guarantees” seriously. Neither should we. The only guarantee we can trust with certainty is that Trump will always benefit Trump.