Safety guarantees. The keyword for peace in Ukraine. The country must become a “steel porcupine” that is indigestible for possible attackers, said Ursula von der Leyen last spring. That was then only about further tricking support. What are we talking about when it comes to security guarantees?
The question has been above a possible Russian-Ukrainian file for years: which safety measures are sufficient to ensure that Moscow does not attack the country again? Solid guarantees are the only conditions on which the Ukrainian government can sell any territorial concessions to the population.
The shortest road, as President Volodymyr Zensky has argued for years, a Ukrainian NATO membership, because of Article 5 of the Convention that states that a military attack on one country is considered an attack on all Member States. But that Ukrainian membership is a passed station, at least as long as Trump is president. This also applies to direct American presence on Ukrainian territory or in the airspace.
“NATO membership had been a nice trump card,” says Frans Osinga, professor war studies at Leiden University. “You could have said to Russia: you can get territory, in return, Ukraine becomes a member of NATO. That had been a great means of pressure. But that has already been given away.”
This means that the ultimate protection for Ukraine is: deterrence of the Russians due to a combination of American air support, presence of the American navy on the Black Sea – with the extra lock on the door the threat of the American nuclear weapons arsenal.
Europe cannot match that American deterrent, so Kyiv will have to look for it in a combination of its own forces, supported by the European allies. And, hopes, with the Americans in the background.
Around the meeting in Washington, the term “NATO-like” security guarantees, “in coordination With the US, but what is meant remains unclear. Given his earlier statements – and Trumps fickle – Ukraine will not richly count on the prospect of American intervention in renewed Russian aggression.
Credibility
The success of a possible file stands or falls in the event of a credible deterrence of the Russians, said the American former General Ben Hodges, former commander of the American armed forces in Europe, in an interview with NRC. “Defraction is about two things: capacity and credibility. You must have capacity in the air, at sea, on the ground, drones, everything. And the Russians really have to believe that you are going to use violence.”
Because, as Hodges and other military analysts warn, the Russians will really intervene from day one or a European peace force and it actually dares to bring down a Russian fighter plane that the Ukrainian airspace penetrates. But first the question is what such a peace force should look like, who is in charge of it, how they should collaborate with the Ukrainian forces and what mandate that troops will get. Such preparations alone, and the political decision -making in this regard, precede months of warning, military experts.
The first step that the US can take for Ukrainian safety is the “to arm the teeth” of the country, so analyzed Trumps special envoy Keith Kellogg already last year. The Ukrainian purchase of US weapons worth 100 billion dollars (87 billion euros), financed by Europe – an agreement on Monday by The Financial Times came out – can be a start of that armament plan.
The allies could help Ukraine with the delivery of more strong and modern weapons, patrols on the Black Sea, the sharing of military intelligence and the stationing of an American force outside of Ukraine, which can be used in the event of a crisis. That written Analyst Luke Coffey of the Hudson Institute in April.
The US could also help the Ukrainian Air Force and the European Partners Logistics in setting a no-fly zone over Ukraine, against rocket and drone attacks and attacks by Russian aircraft. “That would be an important addition to strengthening Ukraine,” says Frans Osinga. “With that you also immediately have an extremely powerful fast reaction capacity in case Russia violates or threatens to violate the file line.”
The most important contribution will have to come from Europe. That already received the bill for paying the Ukrainian weapons. The United Kingdom, France and Germany has also been talking about the possible establishment of a peace force for some time. “The question is: are we willing to intervene, if Russia violates the file line? Where is the threshold,” says Osinga.
Mantra of the allies
A look at the German discussion shows how difficult it is decisions to take over here. It is clear that Berlin wants to play an important role. Between the major political parties will first conformity must be found about how far the country is willing to go. For example, Germany is now stationing troops in Lithuania. “To add troops in Ukraine there is probably too much for us,” said The German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul on Monday.
The only thing that the allies seem about it is it mantra: It is still too early to make definitive statements about this.
Incidentally, the Kremlin has regularly said that it will not agree with troops from NATO countries on Ukrainian soil. Whether a breakthrough was achieved in Alaska on this point when Russia agreed to allow ‘robust security guarantees’ for Ukraine, is uncertain.
Political decision
Chances are that Russia will explain the word very differently: “Putin can easily accept that he, together with America and China, guarantees the safety of Ukraine,” says Bob Deen, analyst of Clingendael. “He runs little risk with that. Because the moment Ukraine says” Help, we are attacked, “the warranty states must give advice on the action plan.” This scenario is similar to the security guarantees that Ukraine received in 1994 before giving up his nuclear weapons – Russia signed them, and then attacked itself.
It is clear to everyone that Europe will have to contribute to Ukrainian safety. Under those European allies, it will have to be determined in the coming period how that support is out, and what red lines of individual countries have. But there is not much time. The security guarantees will “be formalized in one way or another in the coming week or ten days”, said Zensky Monday After the meeting in the White House.
It is clear, however, that at least a number of developments must be seen before there is an actual guarantee. For example, a management structure must be set up. A military headquarters. And there must be political supervisory and decision-making agreements. “If the troops are attacked, then the decision is to attack the Russian air defense system, or a Russian column, ultimately a political decision,” says Deen. “And there should actually be the Ministers of Defense and actually the head of state.”
The question is therefore which system will be created for this. “You are actually just going to create a kind of mini-navo, very specific to Ukraine,” says Deen. “Unless they nevertheless use the existing NATO structure for this.” Possibly NATO-Secretary-General Mark Rutte attended the discussion on Monday to explore this scenario.
Red carpet
What it is not yet explicitly about in current peace talks are cases such as reparations, release of arrested citizens or deported children and punishment of war crimes. That gap is fat from Trumps fingerprints. In March, the US government already lifted one research group to Russian war crimes. This group documented, among other things, proof of deporting Ukrainian children.
The United States also withdrew from an international partnership that investigated the liable of Russian leadership for the invasion. With the literal rolling out of the red carpet for Putin, Trump also put an end to the diplomatic isolation of the Russian leader.
“It is worrying and actually shocking that Putin was welcomed with the red carpet and applause,” says professor Osinga. “He thereby rewards the aggressor and gives him an amazing platform. Trump even puts Putin on a pedestal.”
Even if Europe and Ukraine agree their ideal security scheme, the question remains whether Russia will agree. Deen: “If Putin sits down with Zensky, then I think we will really come close to a deal.”
Trump sees such a meeting in about two weeks. The Russian envoy Joeri Oesjakov announced that he was open to a Ukrainian-Russian consultation, but still showed in with the level of which it would take place. Probably the ministers gather there.
“With a meeting, the risks become very great for Putin,” says Deen. “If he puts himself over the reluctance to talk to the in his eyes non-legitimate Zensky. He will only do that if he can frame inland if: he capitulates. Or: he accepts my plan.”
Deen does not exclude that Putin actually sees opportunities for a sort of file. In the past six months, Ukraine has met him considerably. “Putin actually already has big concessions. That he can retain the occupied country for long term, although it is not formal. That Ukraine cannot get to NATO. Now the Kremlin still has to grind the sharp edges of the word ‘security guarantees’. And then he is there.”