The “security guarantees” for Ukraine, provided by European countries in “US coordination”, are the most important result of Monday's Discussions at the White House. But it is unclear how these guarantees will look and if Russia will agree with them. Security experts have an important warning in this regard, the New York Times, CNBC and Polito writes.
The President of Ukraine Volodimir Zelenski said on Tuesday that Kiev is working on the form of security guarantees that his country requests to the Allies and that discussions between leaders will continue in the coming days.
“The national security counselors are also in permanent contact at this time. There will be security guarantees,” Zelenski said, after discussions at the White House with Donald Trump and European leaders.
Trump told Kiev leader on Monday that the United States will contribute to the security of Ukraine in any agreement that will end the Russia's war in this country, although the extent of the aid was not clear.
“In terms of security, a considerable assistance will be provided,” Trump said, adding that European countries will be involved.
“They are the first line of defense, because they are there, but we will help them,” he said.
Zelenski welcomed the promise, saying it represents “an important step forward” and adding that the guarantees will be “formalized on paper in the next week or in the next 10 days.”
In exchange for this guarantee, Ukraine has offered to buy US weapons worth about 90 billion.
But what will these security guarantees look like?
A force of discouragement
British prime minister Keir Starmer spoke about the establishment of a force, made up of the military of the states of “Coalition of will”, which would be stationed in Ukraine after an agreement to cease its peace.
But no one has publicly detailed what this force would look like. And her appearance matters, say military officials, quoted by the New York Times.
A variant would be a “complete peacekeeping force”, probably armed, which would complete the Ukrainian army.
This would only be established for defensive purposes, but the idea would be to discourage Russia, causing the Kremlin to think well before entering a conflict with soldiers in NATO Member States.
The problem is that to be a credible discouragement factor, it would take tens of thousands of soldiers.
A second possibility is a “warning” force – a much smaller one. This would not be able to organize a strong defense, but the theory is that the Russians would hesitate to risk the killing of Europeans in the event of a new invasion.
A third possibility would be to create an “observation force”.
This could be even smaller, by several hundred soldiers. Its role would be essentially to report any imminent military action.
But this role could be fulfilled with the help of satellites and terrestrial surveillance cameras, and the force would not be large enough to organize any kind of defense.
Russia says “no”
Trump has not committed to add US troops to this combination, regardless of the form he will take.
And the decision on the form that the force will have will probably depend on the form that an agreement to cease its peace will take – if the negotiations will reach so far.
A major problem in the way of this plan is the position of Russia.
Even before the start of negotiations on Monday, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia excluded the possibility of sending troops from NATO countries to help ensure a peace agreement.
“Prudent optimism” and many unknown
French President Emmanuel Macron suggested on Tuesday that “the first security guarantee we are working on – and is the most important – is a strong Ukrainian army, composed of several hundred thousand people, well equipped, with defense systems and higher standards.”
“The second is to have insurance forces, British, French, German, Turkish and others, ready to carry out these operations-not on the front line, not in a provocative way, but air insurance operations, on the sea and on the ground. The goal is to send a strategic signal: Peace in Ukraine is our concern,” he said.
Will this be possible?
Jaroslava Barbieri, researcher at Chatham House, told CNBC that the general atmosphere of Monday's discussions was one of “prudent optimism”, but that there are many unknown.
“However, we must say that the maximalist requests of the Kremlin towards Ukraine have not changed and, therefore, there are still a number of uncertainties regarding security guarantees, details: who will do what, if troops will be carried out, then where will they be stationed and for how long, which countries will contribute?”
Guarantees of the type of article 5 “of NATO
In the long term, Ukraine could receive a strong insurance from NATO allies.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said that Ukraine's accession to the Alliance is not in question, but that security guarantees such as “Article 5” are discussed for this country.
Article 5 of the NATO founding treaty enshrines the principle of collective defense, according to which an attack on any of the 32 members is considered an attack on all.
The accession to the Atlantic Alliance is a strategic goal for Kiev, devoted to the country's constitution, but this is hit by the opposition of Russia and even more Member States.
In his comments, Rutte mentioned that a security guarantee of such magnitude could be offered to Ukraine instead of accession to NATO.
Why are the clear security guarantees required
However, all these details are still unclear, and for Ukraine, the issue of security guarantees is vital.
Security experts warned that if Kiev had giving up their controlled territories, as Putin requires, without precise promises from Washington, then they would remain vulnerable to another, potentially stronger attack.
David Kramer, who held the position of deputy secretary for European and Eurasian business during the George W administration, Bush, talked about this danger with Politico.
He said that Russian leader Vladimir Putin could consider that he can claim the territories of the eastern regions of Ukraine in the absence of clear terms in these US security guarantees.
“I do not think that unclear security guarantees provide enough safety to the Ukrainians. And there will be concern that the president will say yes to security guarantees in a day and not the next day,” said Kramer, who holds the position of Executive Director of the Bush Institute in Dallas.
“A very clear signal must be transmitted to Moscow that a new attack after the conclusion of the fights would trigger a military reaction from the Allies,” he said.
Obstacles to peace
While European leaders have clearly communicated their positions at the White House, Gabrielius Landsbergis, the former Foreign Minister of Lithuania, CNBC said on Tuesday that Europe continues to meet weights in its attempt to do, saying that the block has not yet found its power and “the ability to create levers”.
“What came from yesterday's meeting was that Europe asked the United States to continue their assistance, to request an armistice, to assist any stationary stations, and then some of the leaders even said:” Well, some Ukrainian territories could be lost, but that is reality. “This does not seem to be Europe.
“It is rather as if Europe agree that” we are in a very weak position and we have to thank President Trump as much as we can, but we have nothing to offer, “he noted.
