The US signaled its support for NATO troops in Ukraine last month after Trump’s special envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, praised the principle of security guarantees for the first time shortly after France and the UK committed to deploying troops there in the event of a ceasefire.
This sequence was analyzed in detail here. A recent Financial Times report, published just before the second round of trilateral Russia-Ukraine-US talks, indicates that all three parties taking this principle very seriously.
According to the FT report’s sources, Russia, Ukraine and the US agreed to a three-tiered ceasefire enforcement plan. The first 24 hours after any alleged Russian violation would involve a Ukrainian military response.
The next 24 hours would introduce forces from the “coalition of the willing”, while the final 24 hours would then involve American forces if Russia did not back down.
A minor border incident, perhaps even sparked by a Ukrainian false flag, could therefore conceivably spiral into World War III in just 72 hours.
That scenario is especially likely if NATO troops deploy to Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire, as NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte indicated in a speech at the Rada on the same day as the Financial Times report was published.
In his words, “Some European allies have announced that they will deploy troops to Ukraine after a deal is reached. Troops on the ground, jets in the air, ships on the Black Sea. The United States will be the backstop.”
Russia has repeatedly warned that it would target foreign forces deployed to Ukraine, and has just as repeatedly opposed a ceasefire, instead proposing a comprehensive end to the conflict that resolves its root causes and restores Ukraine’s neutrality.
Agreeing to the reported three-tiered ceasefire enforcement plan, especially if it involves the deployment of NATO troops to Ukraine, would therefore represent a significant policy shift.
To be clear, no Russian official has said anything that could even remotely be interpreted as implying that the Kremlin is considering such an arrangement, so it remains purely speculative.
Nevertheless, it can’t be ruled out entirely. Hypothetically, Russia could be persuaded by incentives such as Ukraine withdrawing from Donbass, a resource-centric strategic partnership with the US and rapidly phased sanctions relief.
Such a trade-off could be rationalized by Moscow as reflecting a calculation that the military, financial and opportunity costs of pursuing the maximalist goals declared at the onset of the special military operation now outweigh the benefits of such mutual compromises.
The proposed quid pro quo would allow Russia to secure control over the most politically emotive territory it claims, give NATO’s US leader a stake in Russia’s security and prosperity, and gradually return Russian oil to global markets.
Russia’s strategic arms, including hypersonic Oreshniks, nuclear submarines and Poseidon underwater drones designed to unleash devastating tsunamis, could also deter Western escalation after any Ukrainian false flag incident, thereby ensuring Russian security despite the three-tiered plan and the presence of NATO troops in Ukraine.
It’s therefore theoretically possible that the Financial Times report could become reality, though it still seems far more likely that Russia would not agree to such an arrangement.
A version of this article was first published on Andrew Korybko’s Substack and is republished here with editing for clarity and fluency. Become an Andrew Korybko Newsletter subscriber here.
