A Proposed Gift

Zelenskyy is looking for security guarantees. I find it a less fruitful exercise and think the current timing of negotiating such guarantees is suboptimal, as explained below.

First, these guarantees do not necessarily work over a long period. Didn’t Ukraine negotiate some type of security guarantee in exchange for its nuclear arsenal? Security guarantees are good things, but they are not sufficient to guarantee security—just like the Paris Climate Agreement is not enough to guarantee the stability of the climate, or even compliance from signatories.

Given the tough situation modern-day Ukraine has been in since its independence from the Soviet Union, Ukraine should try to ensure its security and not just guarantees. As an example, nuclear weapons are one such way. Nuclear weapons provide security via the doctrine of mutually assured destruction. I am not saying it was the wrong decision by Ukraine in the 1990s. I am just using this as an example of a mechanism for ensuring security. It was the right decision at that time, and I think the thesis of mutually assured destruction is a low-probability, high-risk doctrine, i.e., you will feel secure 99%+ of the time, but there is a small chance of mutually assured destruction too.

Another doctrine of security is having a co-pilot. When you take a taxi, you do not necessarily check the driving credentials of the driver, or if you take a flight, you do not necessarily check whether the plane is fully inspected. You trust that, and a big part of the reason is that the driver or the pilot is traveling with you.

You could say that joining NATO was such a doctrine. This doctrine is challenging. It is a process, and until the process is completed, you are provoking or even warning Russia, a threat you are seeking security from in the first place. Therefore, NATO nations have more cost than benefit in letting you join them. They are not going to let you join them when the burden of defending you is immediate. It is like looking for fire insurance when the house is on fire. When your house is on fire, your immediate priority should be to extinguish the fire. The highest priority for Zelenskyy at this time should be to get the war stopped.

Having a co-pilot is a good strategy, but its game theory should be executed better. A game-theory mechanism for ensuring security is to commit your move and remove some of the things your threatening opponent might be looking to win from you. One of the things Russia might be looking for from Ukraine is not to allow NATO to have military bases. Imagine if Zelenskyy offered to gift a mineral-rich 10,000 sq. km territory to the USA. Imagine if Zelenskyy had said to Trump during the recorded event, “As a gesture of gratitude for your help, on behalf of the Ukrainian people and subject to their approval, I would like to offer you not just the mineral deal, but some of the actual territory containing those minerals.” Again, I am not saying Trump would have accepted it, but if he did, Ukraine would have given away its ability to prevent NATO bases on its land.

A 10,000 sq. km territory is enough to establish a military base or even an entire city. As a way of comparison, American territory Guam is just about 500 sq. km. 10,000 sq. km is about the size of Puerto Rico. 10,000 sq. km is very small in comparison to how much Russia has already taken, and probably less than the expected value of the territory Russia would incrementally take if the war continues.

So rather than seeking a higher return, i.e., a security guarantee, in exchange for the mineral deal, Zelenskyy could offer more and get more too in return. Zelenskyy could seek the American flag on its gifted territory, and he did not even have to negotiate it. His negotiation could still be focused on the immediate ceasefire. If his gift was accepted, the American flag would automatically become his co-pilot. Given that the USA has a transaction-minded president, there was a reasonable chance that he would accept a gift of mineral-rich territory, especially if it is portrayed as a gratitude.

Why am I writing about Zelenskyy and not about Trump? The stakes are significantly higher for the former than the latter.