Trump Should Terminate The Bilateral Security Agreement Between The US & Ukraine

Authored by Andfrew Korybko via substack,

New York Times contributor Rajan Menon wrote in a mid-December op-ed that Trump is unlikely to agree to give Ukraine the security guarantees that Zelensky is demanding in temporary lieu of NATO membership. He’s apparently unaware that Trump will soon inherit the bilateral security agreement that the Biden Administration reached with Ukraine in June. It essentially institutionalizes existing US military aid for Ukraine and obligates it to resume the present scale and scope of such if the conflict reignites.

Nevertheless, Menon’s factually inaccurate assessment raises the question of whether Trump would terminate that agreement as part of his plan to “Pivot (back) to Asia” for more muscularly containing China, which his administration could never do in full if it maintains such commitments to Ukraine. Last June’s document stipulates that “Either Party may terminate this Agreement by providing a written notification through diplomatic channels to the other Party” within six months of planning to abandon it.

It’s therefore legally feasible, but Trump would predictably get a lot of flak from his “deep state’s” Russophobic hawks, though he’d then free the US up to “Pivot (back) to Asia” without worrying about being dragged back into another proxy war with Russia in Europe. Moreover, by depriving Ukraine of the US security guarantees that it took for granted, he’d make it less likely that Kiev would violate the ceasefire in an attempt to manipulate America and others into fighting Russia on its behalf afterwards.

Far from reducing the chances for peace, Trump would greatly raise them by withdrawing the US from the so-called “coalition of the willing” that Ukraine aims to pit against Russia through its machinations. Without American participation, Ukraine would be much less likely to provoke another conflict with Russia since it couldn’t take for granted that its other security guarantee partners (e.g. the UK, Germany, Poland, etc.) would risk war with Russia if NATO’s core member isn’t willing to do so anymore over this.

Another important point is that Trump’s reported plan for NATO, whereby he’d pressure them to spend more on defense and assume more responsibilities for their own security, would automatically become a fait accompli in this scenario. He wouldn’t have to bargain with or threaten them since they’d do this on their own out of their self-interests. Knowing that there’d be no chance of the US directly intervening to save Ukraine if the conflict reignites, they’d step up and begin doing what they should have decades ago.

The years of freeloading off of the US would instantly end, thus enabling Trump to accelerate America’s “Pivot (back) to Asia” and redirect the resources that he’d save in Europe to that theater instead. It’s therefore a win-win from the perspective of the US’ grand strategic interests, albeit one that requires tremendous political will. If Trump is serious about implementing his foreign policy agenda, then he should terminate the US’ bilateral security agreement with Ukraine on his first day of office.