The Kremlin has reiterated its absolute opposition to the presence of any NATO troops in Ukraine, regardless of their symbolism. So military support here is likely to be more in the areas of training, intelligence and logistical support, helping Ukraine rebuild its army, along with a steady supply of weapons and ammunition. However, a big question mark remains over what Russia will accept as security guarantees for Ukraine… No country in the “coalition of the willing” is prepared to send troops to Ukraine. No one wants to start World War III.
After this week’s historic meetings at the White House, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky says Ukraine and its allies are “already working on the concrete content of security guarantees.” British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has chaired a virtual meeting of nations prepared to help secure Ukraine after a peace deal – otherwise known as the “coalition of the willing.” And Britain has sent its Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, to Washington to determine how it can help.
BUT, WHAT DO “SAFETY GUARANTEES” REALLY MEAN IN PRACTICE?
There is a wide spectrum here, from the much-used “boots on the ground” to the threat of crippling economic sanctions on Russia’s oil exports. Let’s start with what Ukraine wants and won’t get, at least not for the foreseeable future, and that is NATO membership. US President Donald Trump has ruled this out, but there are many other NATO members who are also quietly opposing it, such as Slovakia, largely on the grounds that it would significantly increase the chances of the transatlantic alliance being drawn into a bitter war with Russia.
Ukraine will undoubtedly need strong security guarantees after a peace agreement is reached, to prevent Russia from coming back and taking “a second or third bite.”
That is why British Prime Minister Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron have created a “coalition of the willing” of over 30 countries, with the aim of providing Ukraine with some international security after a peace deal is signed. Patrolling Ukrainian airspace is another option. This could be done by stationing aircraft at existing air bases in Poland or neighboring Romania, with the US participating. But clear and strong rules of engagement would still be needed if it is to be anything more than a symbolic gesture.
In other words, pilots need to know whether or not they can counterattack if Russia violates the peace agreement, for example, by firing a cruise missile at a Ukrainian city.
PROBLEMOUS SITUATIONS ON THE LAND
The Black Sea is another area where Western security guarantees could help keep the Russian navy at bay and ensure the free flow of commercial shipping from ports such as Odessa. On land, the situation is more problematic. Ukraine is a vast country, and the front line currently stretches for more than 1.000 km. The “coalition of the willing” cannot muster enough troops to deploy and defend that line, even if Russian President Vladimir Putin were to agree to it. But Putin would not accept that.
The Kremlin has reiterated its absolute opposition to the presence of any NATO troops in Ukraine, regardless of their symbolism. So military support here is likely to be more in the areas of training, intelligence, and logistical support, helping Ukraine rebuild its battered military, along with a steady supply of weapons and ammunition.
However, a big question mark remains over what Russia will accept as a security guarantee for Ukraine. Many online commentators have suggested that Moscow should have no say in the matter. But no country in the “coalition of the willing” is prepared to send troops to Ukraine. No one wants to start World War III. John Foreman, a former British military attaché in Moscow who has followed every twist and turn of this conflict, says that “Russia could accept a US security guarantee for Ukraine in exchange for formal recognition of the occupied territories, effectively dividing Ukraine for a long time, and without NATO (troops) in Ukraine and without Ukraine in NATO…”.
“Whatever happens, the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ is no substitute for US power,” he adds.
WILL THE USA INTERVENT?
Many military experts have said that any future “security force” provided by the “coalition of the willing” should have a U.S. contribution, something that until last week’s Alaska summit, Donald Trump had refused to commit to. In Alaska on Friday, U.S. President Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump says the U.S. will be involved in the security guarantee, but without troops on the ground in Ukraine. In an ideal world, what Ukraine and its allies would want from Washington is both U.S. support for this future force, but also, more importantly, a firm commitment that if Russia violates the peace agreement and looks set to resume its attack on Ukraine, then U.S. military power, especially air power, will be available to support the Europeans.
Trump has hinted that US air support will be available in some way, but given how many times he has changed his stance on how to end this war, that’s not so reassuring.
Retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, who commanded U.S. Army forces in Europe, says he is skeptical that “the U.S. is really serious about providing security guarantees for Ukraine and will provide more than just words.” “Europeans don’t trust Vladimir Putin and they are not confused about who the aggressor is in this war. They are concerned that Trump is unable or unwilling to admit that Russia is the aggressor. Putin will not stick to any agreement unless he is forced to,” he said.
And therein lies the inherent contradiction about security guarantees: How do you make them strong enough to deter Russia from attacking Ukraine again, but not so strong that Russia will challenge them and threaten to target Western assets if they continue without Moscow’s consent? Former British Defense Secretary Sir Ben Wallace believes that the West, collectively, has not been strong enough in confronting Vladimir Putin. “The reality that everyone seems to want to avoid acknowledging or doing something about is that Putin shows no sign of wanting to stop the killing,” he says. “Until Trump or Europe, or both, are prepared to do something to push Putin to want change, then little will be achieved in that regard,” Wallace adds.
Edward Arnold, senior research fellow for European security at the London-based think tank RUSI, concludes that the “coalition of the willing” has been “successful in providing a format that is flexible and can engage with Trump in a constructive way, while supporting Ukraine.” But he warns that “it remains a political aspiration, rather than a hardened military construct.” “The next two months will test its resolve and appetite for political risk,” Arnold said. (BBC)
