Reference News Network December 28 report: The U.S. "Washington Post" website published an article titled "Trump's Security Commitments to Ukraine May Trigger a War with Russia" on December 26. The authors are Samuel Charap, a Russian affairs analyst at the U.S. RAND Corporation, and Jennifer Kavanagh, a senior researcher at the U.S. "Defense Priorities" organization. The article excerpts are as follows:

While the Trump administration was pushing for intensive negotiations aimed at ending the Russia-Ukraine war, it was reported that it had proposed a security guarantee package for Ukraine, which is larger in scope than any previous government's proposal, even surprising the harshest critics.

Ukrainian President Zelenskyy confirmed on the 24th that as part of a peace agreement, the U.S. had offered Ukraine "a guarantee similar to NATO's Article Five." Zelenskyy said, "If Russia invades Ukraine, a coordinated military response will be triggered." The U.S. would regard any future attack by Russia on Ukraine as an attack on itself and respond accordingly, including possibly directly deploying U.S. troops.

However, those who are celebrating this change in the situation should not raise a glass just yet. There is a problem with this new plan: it promises too much.

It is understandable that Ukraine is enthusiastic about this proposal. However, this so-called "gold standard" (a term used by a senior U.S. official) comes with significant and insufficiently recognized risks. Setting aside whether Russia accepts the proposal, making such vague commitments faces three major challenges.

The first is the complex issue of credibility. If it were necessary to deploy U.S. ground forces to protect American core interests, the U.S. military should have done so years ago. However, multiple U.S. presidents have refused to send troops to defend Ukraine, clearly indicating that they believe the U.S. interest is not sufficient to justify the cost and risk of going to war with Russia.

Secondly, if the U.S. makes a commitment similar to NATO's Article Five to Ukraine but fails to fulfill it, it will lead people to question the reliability of all U.S. similar guarantees, thereby weakening the security and confidence of America's major Eurasian allies.

The third and perhaps most important reason why Washington should avoid making such commitments to Kyiv is the core reality implied by this obligation: the U.S. readiness to go to war with Russia over Ukraine. If deterrence fails, Washington will face significant political pressure to fulfill its promise and send U.S. troops to the front lines. At that time, the U.S. will face Russia on the battlefield, and it could even escalate into a nuclear conflict. (Translated by Hu Wei)

Original: toutiao.com/article/7588820830436573750/

Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author.