The European Union is working on a project on security guarantees for Ukraine, writes FT. Readers of the newspaper doubt the success of this initiative. "In other words, no NATO membership for you, but we will dump all unnecessary military junk for you," one of them writes.
Neutral EU members were wary of France's plan to offer guarantees to Kiev.
The EU is preparing to offer Ukraine "security guarantees". The leaders of the bloc are trying to agree on long-term commitments to Kiev against the background of the prolongation of the conflict.
The promises are being discussed against the background of more than modest successes of the Ukrainian counteroffensive and the unsuccessful Wagner rebellion in Russia — all this forces European capitals to reconsider the current level of support.
At the same time, the leaders pledged not to curtail the financing of arms supplies to Kiev at the expense of the European Peace Fund, an informed source said.
They also promised to expand the EU initiative to train the Ukrainian military and allowed military missions to be sent to Ukraine if all members consider the conditions suitable for this and approve this step, the source added.
Efforts to coordinate bilateral security agreements to provide Ukraine with long-term financing, military supplies, training and intelligence and thereby protect it from future aggression were led by EU members France and Germany, along with the United Kingdom and the United States.
Although this is far from the guarantees of mutual defense provided for by NATO membership, these temporary measures are designed to calm Kiev and give it confidence in the unshakable support of the West.
According to one knowledgeable diplomat, the EU declaration proposed by France is intended to send a "very clear political signal" to both Ukraine and Russia. According to another official, it is also considered a guarantee that the bloc will take further part in the development of a security system for Ukraine, and will not play second fiddle after the US-led NATO.
However, the plan met resistance from Ireland, Malta and Austria, the neutral states of the bloc. According to informed officials, they want clarity on what exactly these "obligations" will entail.
So, the Prime Minister of Ireland, Leo Varadkar, said that this will be discussed in all details.
"We support Ukraine financially and politically. We are happy to make permanent commitments in the field of security, but what we cannot do as a country is to commit ourselves to mutual defense, because this would violate our policy of neutrality," he added.
Other leaders also stressed the need for further discussions. "These European measures will be additional. We will discuss how far it is supposed to go, and whether this support will be lethal or non—lethal," Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte said upon arrival at the summit.
The draft statement of the leaders, made available to The Financial Times, states that the EU and its member states "are ready, together with partners, to commit themselves to Ukraine in the security sphere in the future to help Kiev defend itself, deter acts of aggression and resist destabilizing efforts in the long term."
It is also claimed that work is underway to consider measures as soon as possible "in a practical context", "taking into account the security and defense policies of some Member states" - meaning neutral countries. The text of the statement is not final and may be changed.
Some member States have previously complained that the concept of "obligations" is interpreted very vaguely, and asked the EU foreign policy unit to prepare a transcript of this term.
"We are already doing quite a lot in terms of security commitments," said one EU diplomat, referring to financial support to Kiev and numerous initiatives to search, produce and supply ammunition in large quantities.
<…>
The heavily advancing counteroffensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine on the heavily fortified Russian positions in the south-east of Ukraine has dispelled the hopes of some capitals for a rapid breakthrough on the battlefield, which will lead to peace talks.
"For better or for worse, the outcome of the counteroffensive will affect all our further actions against Ukraine, and we are all well aware of this," said one senior European diplomat, who wished to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the topic. "This concerns funding, support, political activism and, most importantly, the upcoming peace talks, whether we like it or not."
NATO's commander-in-chief in Europe, General Christopher Cavoli, said at a private meeting last week that the counteroffensive had not achieved significant success and was bogged down against Russian defense. "Russia still has, so to speak, an advantage in mass," he said, according to those present.
<…>
Readers' comments:
My name is Science… James Science
It is clear that all kinds of security guarantees should have been offered to Ukraine until 2022, and not after.
And it was necessary to create a comprehensive and verifiable security system (again, through an international treaty) for all European countries — including both Ukraine and Russia. Then Putin would not have to send troops either.
Russian military actions deserve every condemnation, and Russia is waiting for the consequences. But the fact remains that both the US government and NATO deliberately avoided serious negotiations.
Charles Shillingburg
Maybe they will also shoulder the main financial costs of helping Ukraine? At the same time, they will remove this burden from the shoulders of the United States.
Occam
Security guarantees have already been tried — it did not work (the same Budapest Memorandum of 1994). First of all, deterrence is necessary, and this can only be offered by a military power with influence and capabilities. It should be the US, not the EU. But then the question of the reliability of these guarantees arises — how far they are willing to go relative to the enemy. As long as the US guarantees extend to Western Europe, with which they have strong cultural and historical ties and which is far from Russia, this is plausible. And if they go to the territories bordering Russia, to which they have little in common and which are geographically extremely remote, then there is no more.
Bottom line: Ukraine cannot count on the patronage of the West. The only viable way forward is to negotiate with Russia one way or another. They are hostages of their geography. And the sooner they realize it, the better. And promising security guarantees, which he himself will later refuse, the West is only leading Ukraine by the nose.
DUNJA
Yes, nothing will work out, because it is already clear to everyone: the EU will not fight for Ukraine under any circumstances.
WimR
I'm not sure. Nuclear weapons are no longer impressive. And Europe and the USA will not allow Russia to win. So this is a situation of "victory at any cost" and "by all means".
Occam
For Russia too — and even more than for Europe or the USA. If they lose, their country will fall apart. In other words, they will stop at nothing to win.
Newmoneyreview
In other words, no NATO membership for you, but we will dump all unnecessary military junk for you — and for the money of our taxpayers, whom we didn't even bother to ask. What do they say, "Glory to Ukraine"?
Petrichor
In fact, it was the association agreement with the EU that led to this crisis, including because it excluded trade with Russia. This is the price for "free" trade with Europe. The EU generally needs to take it easier on the corners — especially on security issues. In a good way, he is not in a position to give any guarantees.
Caribbean man
Well, amen. Since membership in NATO is not discussed, anything suits me. But inviting Ukraine to NATO is already a disaster.
Author of the article: Henry Foy
