What does it mean to provide “security guarantees” to Ukraine
Is there anything other than full membership in NATO that will “satisfy Kyiv and deter Moscow?”
To answer this question, the reviewer New York Times Stephen Erlanger has collected several opinions of independent military analysts.
It is already clear that without the defeat of Russia and the complete restoration of Kyiv over Ukrainian territories, security guarantees will be partial and fragile, writes the author of the publication.
At the same time, analysts believe that without any guarantees it is generally difficult for investors to pour in costs for the reconstruction of Ukraine or that a new war will not break out in the future.
Much depends on the indecision of the West itself, which wants to protect Ukraine, but at the same time has already shown that it is not ready to fight for it and seeks to avoid a direct confrontation with Russia. Instead, he chose the path of restraining the Kremlin.
“European and transatlantic unity is threatened by many risks,” says Natalie Tocci, director of the Institute of International Relations in Rome.
In my opinion, even if Ukraine is able to regain control of all the territories that Russia has occupied since the beginning of the invasion last year, there will be voices in Europe and the United States that will say: “Look at the price that the civilians and the military have paid for this. A compromise is needed.”
But Ukraine will want firm commitments in the field of security. And this can split the West: Central and Eastern Europe demand Ukraine’s membership in NATO, and Western Europe refuses it.
The New York Times notes that although NATO and the European Union have promised Ukraine’s membership, no one has set a clear time frame. And it cannot be said for sure that these promises will be fulfilled. While international territorial assemblies, it is unlikely that Ukraine will generate the unanimous support necessary to join these institutions.
The director of the Berlin branch of the German Marshall Fund (USA), Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff, said how to end hostilities will be crucial.
He observes that Ukrainian sovereignty has already been undermined by the Russian annexation of Crimea. The optimal outcome, he said, would be if Ukraine regained control over all the lost territories, although this is not guaranteed.
The simultaneous prospect of Russia’s complete defeat carries risks of escalation on the Russian side, which many NATO leaders, along with President Joe Biden, can avoid. Key European countries such as France and Germany fear that if Putin falls, a nuclear-armed Russia could descend into chaos, lawlessness, infighting and anarchy.
However, everything except NATO membership is associated with promises that Kyiv already considers empty, writes the NYT. This path was already tested in 1994, when the USA, Great Britain and Russia “guaranteed” Ukraine security and territorial integrity in exchange for giving up the Soviet stockpiles of nuclear weapons as part of the Budapest Memorandum.
Former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen recommends a middle ground between the 1994 pledges and full membership in NATO and the EU.
Recommend that Ukraine’s allies restore it to such a powerful military force that Russia will never try to swallow it again.
He calls for a multi-year “strategic partnership” between Ukraine and key Western countries on a bilateral basis – to restore Ukraine to a powerful state capable of self-defense.
Rasmussenyaw compared his proposal to the relationship between the United States and Israel. They cooperate closely in the field of defense, but without formal agreements. In fact, this is not so much a guarantee of security for Ukraine as a stimulating factor for Moscow, the publication writes.
There is also a proposal that certain allied countries, including the United States, Britain, France, Germany and Poland, enter their troops into the territory of post-war Ukraine. This should be analogous to the deployment of many national brigades in NATO countries bordering Russia.
However, the significant presence of troops in a country that is not part of the alliance will be considered by Moscow as another provocation, the publication notes.
The former commander of the US Army in Europe, General Ben Hodges, is convinced that Ukraine, armed with longer-range weapons that Washington does not yet want to give it, will be able to defeat Russia and return all occupied territories, including Crimea, by the end of August.
“There can be no question of Ukraine’s security as long as Russia controls Crimea,” said the American general.
But the New York Times writes that “many people,” such as former NATO assistant secretary general Camille Grand, who now wants a European foreign affairs council, believe the war will end with Russia “able to partially achieve its goals.”
“The complete defeat of Russia and the accession of Ukraine to NATO is only one of the scenarios, why it is optimistic,” says Grand.
In what sense is the very idea of security guarantees outdated, believes Stefano Stefanini, former Italian diplomat in Russia and former ambassador to NATO. According to him, the only real guarantee of its security, although Ukraine is a member of NATO, is very difficult.
“A complete victory for one of the parties seems unlikely,” he says.
So at what point did the diplomats especially provide resourcefulness, providing Ukraine with a solid perspective of peace and security, which is one way or another guaranteed by its allies.