If not NATO, then what?

polska-zbrojna.pl 4 days ago

How can Ukraine be safe erstwhile the guns are already in silence in the East? Not only the Ukrainians themselves, but besides the Western leaders, are concerned. For respective days we have been observing diplomatic reinforcement – Donald Trump, EU leaders, representatives of alleged coalitions of volunteers. The influential groups discuss, usually with the participation of the president of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenski, who is tirelessly lobbying for his country. What will result?

We know for certain that with Ukraine in NATO The thread – president Trump speaks straight about it, without playing protocolary ceremonies. To be honest, it is worth noting that American leaders are seconded by others. The Membership of Kiev is opposed by Hungary and Slovakia – which is not peculiarly amazing – but besides by Germany, who claim to be a faithful lawyer of our east neighbour. In Poland, we do not have over-political consent in this respect – unlike the government, the fresh president Karol Nawrocki declares himself an opponent of Ukraine in the Alliance. Meanwhile, being part of NATO was expected to give the Ukrainians a break. Over the Dnieprem it was assumed that formal barriers would vanish at the end of the war and that the country protected by Article 5 would be safe.

Risk of isolation and cut-off from financial resources

Less than a year ago, erstwhile this script began to be called into question, Zelenski made it clear. "Our own atomic weapons or NATO membership" – yes, in conversation with Trump, then the presidential candidate outlined possible alternatives. According to some, he threatened, according to others, to bluff, thus pointing out that without western protection his country would sooner or later fall into Russian hands. In the latter, nothing has changed – in the long term, the lonely Ukraine will not survive. Is it, therefore, that since the “NATO option” is not an option, Kiev was actually “indicted”? I will not argue with the argument that having atomic weapons would save Ukraine from Russia due to the fact that I share this argument. But a realistic assessment of the situation makes me think it's impossible. Ukraine is incapable to have specified weapons.

RECLAMA

In Ukraine – and beyond – there is simply a belief that the country, in decline after the USSR, had and inactive has the appropriate technological and industrial facilities to make and produce "atomics". Yes, strong centres in Kharkiv, Dniepra and Kiev were active in the erstwhile russian republic, but their scope of competences and method capabilities did not include the full production cycle and modernisation of atomic weapons. Let us add financial issues to this – creating and maintaining the atomic arsenal would cost Ukraine tens of billions of dollars. Who would fund this, since not only Russia or China, but besides the United States, France and the United Kingdom, care for a atomic monopoly? Failure to cooperate would exposure Kiev to diplomatic isolation and cut off from global financial assistance. Or even sanctions if Kiev is considered to be breaking the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The Trap Force – Unproven Theory

So, if the alternate to "NATO or nukes" is false, is there any another way to guarantee long-term peace for Ukraine? erstwhile it comes to safety guarantees, ideas about the presence of Western soldiers in its territory are put to the fore. Peacekeeping forces do not seem to be a bad solution – adequately many and technically saturated could act as a deterrent on Russians. Could the allies of Ukraine be able to form specified a contingent, especially assuming that it would should be stationed on Ukrainian dirt for many years?

There are 3 ideas for the presence of abroad military-guarantors in Ukraine – they disagree in the scale of engagement. In the first case, we are talking about a major operation involving as many as 100,000 people at once. Given the technological reality, it would be something like an American-British presence in the territory of the West Germany during the Cold War. However, this script should be considered highly unrealistic – Americans wash their hands and Europeans are not organizationally capable of specified effort.

President Donald J. Trump and president Volodymyr Zelenski in the Oval Office. 18.08.201025. Photo: White House/ Platform X

Option 2 refers to a multi-thousand military presence. They would not be able to halt the Russians in the event of physical confrontation. The “New York Times” refers to them as trapping forces, which does not precisely reflect the essence of things. It is the belief that the Russians would hesitate to take the lives of Europeans outside Ukraine if the invasion resumed. However, as the diary points out, this explanation is untrue and very risky. The last of the concepts assumes the creation of a "observatory force". They could number only a fewer 100 soldiers, and their task would be to inform about the upcoming military activities. In fact, therefore, we would be faced with a symbolic presence, which is not entirely reasonable, due to the fact that specified objectives can be achieved remotely, via satellites and air reconnaissance.

As you can imagine, the second and 3rd scenarios do not satisfy Ukrainians. Even if they were followed by political declarations, like Article 5, without formal NATO membership. Over the Dnieprem they have bad experiences with "paper obligations" and it is not surprising. The Budapest Memorandum guaranteed Kiev protection from Russia, the USA and the UK (in exchange for surrendering atomic arsenal) – how much these declarations were worth, we see well today. Ukraine – alternatively of smooth records – would like the hard and unsymbolic presence of allied troops in its territory.

Dismantling and a bridge

What can I do if it's impossible? And you can choose a half-measure: arm the Ukrainian army to the teeth. After respective decades of full-scale war, the Russians know well that their weapons in most categories give way to Western systems. They are aware that present they are being rescued by a comparatively tiny amount of this weapon in equipping Ukrainians. A twelve F-16s make no difference, but 200 machines would vomit Russian aviation from Ukrainian sky. So it is and would be with tanks, artillery, rocket weapons, especially average and long range. The technological and financial power of the West could besides aid Ukrainians to build advantage in WRE weapons (radioelectronic struggle), in further expansion of the drone component. Would Russia go to another war with specified an opponent? There's no way to regulation it out, but the hazard would surely be less.

Of course, reinforcement of Ukraine's Armed Forces will cost – small little than now, erstwhile the West lectures annually around $40 billion to support Ukrainian war effort. However, given the cumulated budgets "Volunteers' Coalition"It wouldn't be a large burden.

However, there is simply a “but”. While the appropriate strength of the Ukrainian Army's land component could be achieved comparatively quickly, it would take at least a fewer years to build the appropriate deterrent possible in the air. 2 hundred-three 100 multi-tasking machines cannot be conjured up, and training pilots and personnel is not a fast challenge. A "bridge" would so be needed – even a fewer years of NATO air force mission, with an expansive American participation. Like an operation over erstwhile Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Given the technical, tactical and organisational advantages of western aviation over Russia, the advanced level of preparedness for specified a quota and its possible for severe impact would be a strong deterrent. A solid guarantee.

Fears of the Russians

Chances of that scenario? They are not tiny – Trump officially warned that he would not send land troops to Ukraine, but air support for European missions did not exclude. More importantly, however, on 18 August, during the White home summit, US, European and Ukrainian leaders initially agreed on a mechanism. Trump agreed to sale arms to Ukrainians. Zelenski, in an interview with journalists, admitted that the anticipation of acquiring American weapons was part of a safety guarantee. As part of this solution, Ukraine will buy US weapons worth $90 billion through Europe. He added that the formal agreement inactive needs to be agreed, pointing out that specified a deal would be an crucial step towards ensuring that Ukrainian forces proceed to fight Russia and have a solid defence if a peace agreement was reached. In another words, Europe pays, the US delivers arms, and Ukraine has and develops its possible to deter Russia. In a somewhat cynical way, everyone is happy: any do not fight, others earn, others have something to defender themselves with.

Finally, it is worth mentioning a certain danger. They are peculiarly visible in Poland, where there is an increasingly common argument in the public debate about the hazard of rearing Ukraine. “For if they get along with Russia, the sword we gave them will come to us,” that is the core of this thinking. possibly in any cases there is real concern behind him, but it is hard to defy the impression that specified fears are reinforced by a Russian disinformation apparatus. It is simply a certainty that the Russians will not let go and will influence our perception of matters in this area. Hoping that if they manage to discourage Poles from supporting Ukraine, in time this will besides translate into political decisions taken by Polish authorities. And the Russians are wide open, not just here...

Marcin Ogdowski , writer “Polish Armed Forces”, war correspondent, author of the blog unkamuflazu.pl
Read Entire Article