|
Security guarantees for Ukraine: a company of Estonians, 'NATO light' or regime change
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited.by Gevorg Mirzayan [REGNUM] Security guarantees for Ukraine, which it is now loudly bargaining for, are one of the most difficult issues in the context of preparing a peace agreement.  For example, the adviser to the head of the President's Office, Mikhail Podolyak, who made a practically sensational statement in an interview with La Repubblica about his readiness to freeze the conflict along the front line and actually recognize part of his territories as lost, at the same time insists on the direct obligation of the "partners" to automatically intervene in the conflict if it resumes. Moreover, as part of a whole separate alliance. And they, in turn, try in every way to avoid such formats that involve a military clash with Russia. At the same time, Zelensky himself has already fundamentally rejected participation in the potential pool of guarantors of China, because it is helping not Ukraine, but Russia, by “opening the drone market.” But mighty Estonia has already offered a whole company of its peacekeepers. Western experts and politicians offer various options, invent schemes. But at the same time they do not pay attention to the fact that some of these schemes have already proven their unviability, and some are simply unrealistic. After all, instead of security, it leads to a big war BACK TO THE PAST Russia's position in this whole story is very simple: security guarantees must be comprehensive, fair and, so to speak, inclusive. That is, not be directed against Russia and not be implemented without it. "I am sure that in the West, first and foremost in the United States, they understand perfectly well that seriously discussing security issues without the Russian Federation is a utopia. It is a road to nowhere," said Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. According to him, the Russian side does not overstate its interests, but will ensure its legitimate interests firmly and harshly. The minister made it clear that he sees a good option for guarantees in the formula that was proposed by Kiev itself in the spring of 2022, at the Istanbul talks. At that time, according to the draft, the role of guarantors was assigned to the permanent members of the UN Security Council, as well as a number of other interested states (among which Germany and Turkey were mentioned). “And in that context, the Ukrainian proposal clearly meant that these guarantees would be equal, the security of all interested parties, including Ukraine’s neighbors, would be ensured on an equal, equal, indivisible basis,” Lavrov recalls. The mechanism has not been fully worked out, but the discussion could most likely involve the deployment of civilian observers on Ukrainian territory. However, the West is not considering this option yet. In Europe's understanding, guarantees to Ukraine should include the deployment of not only observers there, but also troops. As well as the creation of an air-free zone and the supply of weapons to the Kyiv regime. The Italian government also proposes the “NATO Light” option – that is, not to include Ukraine in the organization, but to accept obligations towards it that are similar to Article 5 of the Charter of the North Atlantic Alliance. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been tasked with formulating something viable from these proposals. And, according to a number of journalists, it will be very difficult for him to achieve success. After all, the formats and conditions proposed by Western countries are not just unrealistic – some of them have already proven their uselessness in practice. SPY OBSERVERS Take the simplest point - observers. Western countries assume that these observers will be their representatives from some pro-Western organization, like the OSCE. However, Moscow is not interested in this, because the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe is a structure that has proven itself to be an extremely unreliable observer during the attempts to implement the Minsk agreements. In particular, it deliberately did not record the numerous artillery strikes of the Kyiv regime on the cities of Donbass. But first of all, there is no trust in it because its employees worked for foreign intelligence services. “According to the information we have, they transmitted data regarding our positions and the number of our personnel to foreign intelligence agencies,” DPR head Denis Pushilin said in 2022. Moscow does not need a repeat of the monitoring of the Minsk agreements, when the Kiev regime violated almost all points of the road map, and the West, with the connivance of the OSCE, said that Russia was violating these points. Moscow is also unlikely to agree to the deployment of Western observers on its territory. Senior researcher at the IMEMO RAS Dmitry Ofitserov-Belsky explains to the Regnum news agency that “it would be strange for a great power to allow observers to come to it.” "We are not a failed state or a rebel entity, Russia is a responsible country and a member of the UN Security Council. We do not need observers," the expert is sure. Moreover, in the format of the conflict settlement in Donbass, the Russian side has always complied with all the agreements it signed, unlike Kiev. And this is not to mention the fact that Western observers themselves will refuse to be deployed in the Russian territories of Donbass and the Black Sea region - because then they will effectively recognize the sovereignty of the Russian Federation over these lands. Inviting observers from the SCO or BRICS could solve some of the problems, but Europe will not agree to this. First of all, because by doing so it will not only recognize the high status of these (alternative to Western) global governance structures, but will also sign up to the fact that Asians are now engaged in peacekeeping in Europe. A humiliating fact for the West. WHO WILL SEND? As for the deployment of Western troops and airless space, the question is whose forces will do all this. Yes, nominally there seem to be participants. "I can confirm that more than three countries are ready to send soldiers to Ukraine," said Zelensky's office chief Andriy Yermak. One of them is already known and named by us - it is Estonia. According to Estonian Prime Minister Kristen Michal, his country is ready to send about a hundred soldiers to Ukraine. Preliminary, the list of potential participants includes France and Great Britain, as well as Germany. However, in reality, these countries are not so decisive. For example, in February 2024, Ukraine signed agreements on security guarantees with Germany and France. According to them, Berlin and Paris pledged to simply provide assistance to Kyiv for 10 years, as well as put pressure on Russia. But there was no talk of introducing troops. It did not work because Moscow is categorically against any deployment of Western troops in Ukraine. Foreign intervention, as Sergey Lavrov called it. “ And I very much hope that those who hatch such plans, either they are simply trying to attract attention to themselves, but I hope that they understand that this will be absolutely unacceptable for the Russian Federation and for all sensible political forces in Europe, ” the minister noted. One of the goals of the SVO was precisely to prevent Ukraine from becoming an anti-Russian stronghold, and Moscow intends to achieve these goals. And without Russian consent, the deployment of troops could lead to them becoming legitimate targets for Russian missiles – something that has also been repeatedly discussed in Moscow. The planes that will supposedly ensure an airless zone in Ukraine will become targets for fighters and air defense of the Russian army. Which would involve the West in direct conflict with a nuclear power. CHANCE FOR A POSTCARD Oddly enough, a partial way out of this situation could be the implementation of the Italian “NATO light” scheme: the absence of foreign troops on Ukrainian territory and the presence of only guarantees to intervene in the event of a war. Moreover, it is far from certain that this intervention will look like sending combat brigades. In fact, the NATO Charter does not imply automatic entry into war. After all, literally in Article 5 it is stated that in the event of an attack on one of the countries, the others will immediately take individual or joint actions that they deem necessary. Including (but not necessarily) the use of armed force. “They can send troops, weapons, or just a postcard with words of support to help,” Ofitserov-Belsky says ironically. However, there are some serious downsides here too. The presence of such guarantees could become a pretext for, say, Estonia, after some provocation by the Kyiv regime, to send its unfortunate company of soldiers to Ukraine, and after its liquidation (and after attacks on Estonia itself as an aggressor), to raise the issue of attacking a NATO member country. Which again risks causing a major war in Europe, whereas the point of security guarantees is to avoid this war. Therefore, it is possible that sooner or later the West will return to the option proposed by Russia: broad guarantees, multiplied by the non-confrontational nature of the new Kyiv government, which should replace the Zelensky regime. Which, in principle, is the main guarantee of peace. But if the West returns to it too late – in the Estonian style – then perhaps there will no longer be a need to give guarantees. More precisely, there is no one. Posted by: badanov 2025-08-22 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=780725 |