President Trump Will Not Obligate U.S. Without Ability To Get Out Of Whatever Is Included In Any Security Guarantee Document. Same For EU And NATO Member Countries. And Watching Financial Ponzi Scheme
President Trump Will Not Obligate The United States Government Without Requiring An Ability To Get Out Of Whatever Is Included In Any Security Guarantee Document
Are The EU And NATO More Fearful Of President Putin Or President Trump? Which One Is The More Theoretical Threat And Which One Is The More Consequential And Realistic Threat?
EU Member Leaders Fear Pain To Their Voters, Taxpayers, More Than Pain For Ukraine
A Choice Between Idealistic And Realistic With Each Having Financial Costs
EU Engaging In A Political Ponzi Scheme
To Obtain And Maintain Support, President Zelensky And Members Of His Government Have Promised Multiple Governments, Particularly At Reconstruction Conferences Since 2022, Their Companies Would Be First In Line To Access The US$320 Billion In Russian Central Bank Assets Frozen To Rebuild Ukraine. There Is One Problem. President Trump Plans To Be First, Second, And Third. If He Cannot Claim It, He Will Make Challenging For Others To Use It.
Ursula Von Der Leyen Said Ukraine “only has to pay back these loans if Russia pays reparations.” What If President Putin Responds The EU Has Already Stolen US$247 Billion- So Do Not Ask For More. So How Does Ukraine Repay Anything?
President Trump Believes Himself A Mediator. President Zelensky, EU, And NATO Want President Trump On Their Side Of The Table.
Russia Must Be Terrified That Military Personnel From France Would Protect Airports In Ukraine. Perhaps, Can They Also Be School Monitors?
Easiest To Implement Is Shifting Oblast Borders Of Ukraine To Where Occupied By Armed Forces Of Russian Federation.
The Russian Federation-Ukraine War ends when each government believes too many of its citizens, civilian and military, have died and too much money has been dedicated to achieving their respective goals. To date, not enough people died and not enough money spent.
Heads of state and heads of countries whose members are within the European Union (EU), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), need to accept that whatever text is included in a co-existence agreement or series of co-existence agreements executed by the government of the Russian Federation and government of Ukraine, the expected lifespan(s) of any document may cease at 12:00 pm on 20 January 2029, the end of the Trump-Vance Administration (2025-2029). Three years and one month and five days.
European Union: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden.
NATO: United States, United Kingdom, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Albania, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Montenegro, Croatia, Czech Republic, Poland, Estonia, Romania, Germany, Slovakia, Greece, Slovenia, Hungary, Spain, Turkiye, Latvia, and North Macedonia, Sweden.
The security guarantees insisted upon by Volodymyr Zelensky, President of Ukraine (2019-2024; term extended due to imposition of martial law in 2022), will not materialize. No government will guarantee to deploy military (combat) personnel into the internationally-recognized territory of Ukraine. The most obvious reason is those who are heads of state and heads of government today may not be in office tomorrow- obligating successor governments to anything is politically problematic.
“We want legally binding security guarantees. We don’t want (another) Budapest Memorandum.” Volodymyr Zelensky
Donald Trump, President of the United States (2017-2021 and 2025-2029), will not obligate the government of the United States to potentially engage in direct or indirect military engagement with the armed forces of the Russian Federation. He has used the term “backstop” to describe the role of the United States government. A backstop is not immovable. A backstop can be a metaphorical safeguard.
Recently, the government of Saudi Arabia signed a Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement with the government of Pakistan. The document includes “any aggression against either country shall be considered an aggression against both.” This wording does not require the military of either country to engage on behalf of the other. Very much similar to NATO Article Five.
The approach by President Trump to decisions relating to Ukraine are consistent with this statement from him about issues relating to Iran: “Nobody knows what I’m going to do. Should add and I do not know what I am going to do.”
Even if President Trump agrees to submit “security guarantees” in the format as legislation to the United States Congress (House of Representatives and Senate) seeking passage as a statute or submit to the United States Senate seeking passage as a treaty, the language will include provisions for President Trump to not do something that others may want him, or his successor, to do. He will require language similar to NATO Article Five which permits each member to determine what it will and what it will not do to assist a member.
The focus among NATO leadership is how to present, market, text as a robust deterrent when they know will not be binding. And they know that the government of the Russian Federation knows will not be binding and the government of Ukraine knows will not be binding. Like a new menu item- Article Five Like, Article Five Lite, Article Five Style.
Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation (2000-2008 and 2012- ), shared about NATO “We do not consider any rearmament by NATO to be a threat to the Russian Federation, because we are self-sufficient in terms of ensuring our own security… constantly modernizing our armed forces and defensive capabilities… We will counter all threats that arise. There is no doubt about that.” His views do not represent a head of state concerned about NATO or Article Five.
President Trump will advocate for the obligations of other parties to be legally binding, but the obligations he agrees to for the government of the United States will always have an escape clause. Should there be a moment when one or more parties seek the obligations to be operational and President Trump disagrees, he will revert to his standard defense- threaten to sue- choice of becoming a defendant or a plaintiff.
President Zelensky wants legislatures and parliaments to ratify security guarantees so the executed documents would be legally binding. And what would the government of Ukraine do if a signatory government decides to not to what it is legally obligated to do? Is the government of Ukraine going to sue?
EU-member countries and NATO-member countries will align with President Trump, although with less obviousness. Their reticence has a foundation in a lack of support from their respective taxpayers and voters. Some of the governments are fragile in terms of the coalition(s) that maintain them in power. Many of the governments are fragile in terms of finances- budgets are increasing, debt is increasing, unemployment remains problematic, and education, healthcare, and social programs require increasing funding from voters who believe fees are too high and taxes are too high.
Yes, there are the Coalition of the Willing, Coalition of the Ready, Coalition of the Uncertain, Coalition of the Inconvenienced, Coalition of the Unsettled, Coalition of Up in the Air, Coalition of the Unstable, Coalition of the Reassuring, and Coalition of the Determined. None of what they have thus far said, proposed, is binding on any of them.
“It [coalition personnel] will be deployed in the case of a ceasefire, not on the frontlines but in areas that are still being defined, but they aim to prevent any major aggression and to implicate these 26 states very clearly in the lasting security of Ukraine.” Friedrich Merz, Chancellor of Germany
The government of Ukraine will not get guarantees- meaning legally binding obligations to provide the government of Ukraine with military personnel on or near the border with the Russian Federation, funding to pay for that military personnel, or mutual defense treaties. There may be NATO Article Five exact, lite, or similar language.
However, the government of the Russian Federation has spent far more time reading the text of NATO Article Five than have those who continue to rant about it. NATO Article Five does not require any NATO member to do anything militarily on behalf of another member. Thus, for the government of the Russian Federation, NATO Article Five is a commodity to be negotiated. Meaning, they will trade it for something they do want.
All NATO members will not agree to spend 5% (3.5% direct and 1.5% indirect) of their annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on military. Each of the thirty-two country members of NATO have domestic constituencies and domestic focuses (education, healthcare, infrastructure, lessening spending, lowering taxes, etc.) that will collide with NATO leadership desires- the current secretary-general and his predecessor is and was incessantly advocating for substantial increases for the military maintaining as irrelevant the taxpayer priorities of each member government.
As the Russian Federation-Ukraine War transitions, certainly inconsistently, towards an armistice, frozen conflict, peace agreement, peace treaty, or more likely co-existence agreement(s) to end military engagement, there will be as in 1991 with the dissolution of the fifteen-republic U.S.S.R. (1922-1991), a focus by political leadership throughout members of the EU and NATO to repeat the twentieth century peace dividend with a twenty-first century peace dividend whether sound decision-making or not. The twentieth century peace dividend saw governments, including the United States, decrease funding for the military and increase funding for education, healthcare, and infrastructure.
What happens when President Putin dies or leaves office? He is seventy-two years old. His father died age eighty-eight and his grandfather died age eighty-eight.
President Putin knows too the durability of a co-existence agreement or series of co-existence agreements executed by the government of the Russian Federation and government of Ukraine only need survivability for a bit more than three years. True as well is the unknown physical or political trajectory for President Putin during the next bit more than three years.
President Putin remains confident that any co-existence agreement(s) will include more of what the government of the Russian Federation wants rather than reflect more of what the government of Ukraine wants- and what members of the EU and NATO want. The terms will favor interests of the Russian Federation.
The larger the diplomatic and military chorus reciting that President Putin- the government of the Russian Federation and armed forces of the Russian Federation, have lost the war and are losers, the more entrenched politically becomes President Putin. He will be encouraged to continue to prove others wrong. Time to acknowledge that while President Putin has not accomplished the goals he initially set out to achieve, he has succeeded partially. So, he can end the war and, for his domestic audience, claim victory and justification for an estimated more than 150,000 citizens of the Russian Federation dead and an estimated hundreds of thousands wounded since 24 February 2022.
Note what was “as long as it takes” during the Biden-Harris Administration (2021-2025) and transitioned to “as long as we can” is today embraced by the thirty-plus countries among the Coalition of the Willing who seem less willing the nearer they need to be willing.
The Trump-Vance Administration United States Department of State sometimes describes the goal as seeking a “durable peace” and other times describes the goal as seeking a “durable and just peace” for the Russian Federation-Ukraine War. And a recent readout from a meeting of the G7 foreign ministers reiterated “We remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force” despite the reality that the armed forces of the Russian Federation have done that since 2014 and continue to do so.
Dr. Ursula von der Leyen, President of Brussels, Belgium-based European Commission (EC) since 2019 (reappointed in 2024 to a second five-year term), continues to reflect upon a “just and lasting peace” as her preferred result.
Dr. von der Leyen is not a combination head of state and head of government. Dr. von der Leyen controls no army, navy, has no military weapons, and no generals report to her. Her ego is out of control. EU member countries will not permit her to control their military resources. Dr. von der Leyen continues, like a Napoleonic stereotype, to threaten sending into Ukraine troops she does not have and will not control.
Dr. von der Leyen is not commander-in-chief of the Europe Army, Europe Navy, Europe Air Force, and Europe Special Forces. No EU-member government will submit its sovereign control for its military to administrative leadership in Brussels, Belgium. No EU-member head of state or head of government will be on the tarmac of an airport to attend the dignified military transfer of the remains of one of their citizens who died because of a decision made by Dr. von der Leyen in Brussels to deploy that citizen to another country, EU member or non-EU member.
“I would know better than to comment or confirm such considerations in any way, apart from the fact that the European Union has no mandate or competency whatsoever when it comes to positioning troops.” Boris Pistorius, Minister of Defense of Germany
“Of course, it always needs the political decision of the respective country, because deploying troops is one of the most important sovereign decisions of a nation… The sense of urgency is very high . . . it’s moving forward. It’s really taking shape.” Ursula von der Leyen
7,000 troops will cost approximately US$700 million- that is approximately US$100,000.00 per person. “Tens of thousands of troops” could cost annually US$3 billion to US$5 billion. Who will pay for this?
“I will not allow one country, and I will certainly not allow Viktor Orban [Prime Minister of Hungary], to take decisions upon the entire European future.” Mette Frederiksen, Prime Minister of Denmark
The prime minister would expectantly have a similar position as to political leadership in Brussels dispatching her citizens into a conflict zone without her authorization.
The reality is there will be no “peace” because “peace” is a state of mind along with constructing words. Whatever the outcome, the most appropriate definition is for a “co-existence agreement” or a series of “co-existence agreements” as there will be a goal by some parties to not have a future issue with one provision result in a disintegration of the entirety of whatever is executed by a representative(s) of the government of the Russian Federation and government of Ukraine.
President Zelensky has this past weekend adopted a sensible wording to describe what he is seeking- less on what he wants and more about what is likely. The focus need not be about seeking “peace” but rather seeking a “political agreement” or agreements with the government of the Russian Federation.
“Most importantly, I will be meeting with envoys of President Trump, and there will also be meetings with our European partners, with many leaders, concerning the foundation of peace – a political agreement to end the war” Volodymyr Zelensky
For proof about the unlikelihood of security guarantees materializing in a manner President Zelensky believes are essential to protect what remains of the internationally-recognized territory of Ukraine, look to the debate among EU-member countries as to sourcing monies (approximately US$200 billion) to continue supporting the government of Ukraine for the next two years- its budget and its military.
Each head of state and head of government are engaging in financial and political gymnastics to prevent any EU-wide and EU-member specific obligation from listing as a debt on their government books. Germany’s fragile coalition government would be agreeing to potentially US$60 billion in liabilities.
The reason is simple- no EU-member head of state or EU-member head of government, along with Dr. Ursula von der Leyen believes that the government of Ukraine will repay the monies already provided- approximately US$250 billion collectively for budget and military, and even if it does try to repay the funds, lack of interest accrual means taxpayers in the EU have lost opportunities to use the funds for other purposes.
And then the pesky issue that on 24 February 2022, approximately US$320 billion in reserves of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation were frozen. These assets are primarily located within EU-member countries, but also in countries including Japan (approximately US$20 billion) and United States (approximately US$5 billion).
The assets were frozen so at the conclusion of the Russian Federation-Ukraine War there would be funds to pay for the reconstruction of Ukraine. That seemed at the time and continues to be sound logic. Whomever breaks it, pays for it. The estimates for broken in Ukraine ranges from US$250 billion to US$500 billion.
The concept of requiring a government to be responsible to compensate for the destruction of civilian assets is fair. For example, the government of the State of Israel is responsible for the decisions implemented by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) since 7 October 2023 throughout Gaza, a territory inhabiting approximately 2.3 million. The result has been destruction of approximately 90% of structures including electricity, sewage, and water systems. The estimated cost of all the damage to civilian assets is US$50 billion. The government of the State of Israel has approximately US$200 billion in foreign reserves.
In the case of Gaza reconstruction, the government of the State of Israel, meaning taxpayers in the State of Israel, are asked to repay nothing. Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of the State of Israel (2022- , 2009-2021, 1996-1999), maintains that if anyone wants to pay to reconstruct Gaza, they can do so- but the government of the State of Israel will determine whose money is acceptable, which companies are permitted to engage, and who will profit- that’s easy, Israel-based companies and individuals. Governments (including EU leadership) who have opposed decisions implemented in Gaza by the government of the State of Israel have thus far accepted that the government of the State of Israel is not financially responsible for what it inflicted by choice upon the territory of Gaza.
Note: On 7 October 2025, approximately 1,200 people (citizens of the State of Israel, residents of the State of Israel, visitors in the State of Israel) were killed by members of Hamas and affiliated organizations. In response since, the armed forces of the State of Israel have killed more than 70,000 inhabitants of Gaza. A ratio of 70:1.
“The missile fired at Soroka Medical Center is an act of terror and crosses a red line. It is a war crime by the Iranian regime, deliberately targeting innocent civilians and medical teams dedicated to saving lives.” Uriel Buso, Minister of Health of the State of Israel
Note: In 1787, enshrined in the United States Constitution was Article I, Section 2 that counted Black people as three-fifths of a person for representation and taxes. In 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment superseded the clause. Even at its worst, the United States government did not believe one white life was worth seventy Black lives.
Returning to the Central Bank of the Russian Federation assets frozen and what will be done with them. Politicians are doing what their DNA requires them to do- lie, misdirect, mislead, and maintain multiple sets of financial records. An individual doing what politicians do with accounting would result in a lengthy prison term. They are organizing a political Ponzi scheme- using funds from one account to pay for what they want from another account- eventually nothing in either account… and taxpayers will be asked to make good on what politicians have done.
In 2024, the EU collectively and the Biden-Harris Administration agreed to provide US$50 billion to the government of Ukraine. The EU provided US$30 billion and the United States provided US$20 billion. Each party could forgive its portion. The United States did. The US$50 billion was guaranteed by the approximately US$247 billion in frozen assets within the jurisdiction of the EU, mostly in Belgium. Meaning, the Biden-Harris Administration gifted United States taxpayers with another US$20 billion in debt. EU leadership in Brussels, Belgium, wants to recoup first its US$30 billion prior to further disbursements to the government of Ukraine from the frozen assets.
Subtracting the US$30 billion EU share from the US$247 billion leaves approximately US$217 billion in frozen assets. The EU wants to use approximately US$190 billion as loan guarantees for additional (two-year) budget and military funding for Ukraine. That would leave US$27 billion for the reconstruction of Ukraine.
If the reconstruction of Ukraine is estimated to cost from US$250 billion to US$500 billion to US$600 billion, from where will this money originate?
If the EU requests that the government of the Russian Federation make an additional payment(s), the response would be not to ask for a double payment. If the EU froze the assets for one purpose and then used them for other purposes, from the perspective of the government of the Russian Federation, that was the choice of the EU for which the government of the Russian Federation is not responsible.
NOTE: The government of the Russian Federation reports that EU-based company assets remaining within the Russian Federation are approximately US$120 billion and United States-based company assets remaining in the Russian Federation are approximately US$20 billion.
Small Business Trends