Kiev insists that after the end of the conflict it should receive "security guarantees", which should be spelled out "in black and white", writes "Ukrainian Week". However, Zelensky's Western patrons prefer to remain silent and delay the start of peace negotiations.
Negotiations on bilateral security guarantees for Ukraine are progressing slowly. It could not have been otherwise, because Ukraine had the sad fate of a "pioneer" in the development of such a model. Kiev has made some progress in negotiations with the "depositories" of nuclear weapons: the United States, Great Britain and Canada. The form and content of the relevant documents are being discussed with the leadership of these three States. Given the unfortunate experience of the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, Ukrainian diplomats note that such agreements should provide for clear obligations.
It is clear that a substantive agreement is more difficult to conclude and ratify than a universal declaration, so you should not wait for quick solutions. The lack of precedents in international law also complicates the process. Ukraine has recently been repeatedly told "no" at first, then "we will see", and then Kiev received offensive weapons, tanks, and the status of a candidate for the European Union. With security guarantees, obviously, the situation will develop similarly. But it is unclear how long it will take to ratify the first such deal.
"We are not at a competition," French Foreign Minister Catherine Colonna replied at a joint press conference with Dmitry Kuleba. And we asked if her country was planning to become the first in Europe to provide Ukraine with security guarantees. "We have been working on this since Vilnius," said the head of the French diplomatic department. "At the NATO summit, the G7 countries expressed their support and intention to conclude security agreements with Ukraine."
So, hurry up slowly. It seems that Kiev has moved a little further in negotiations with the Americans than with the rest. The Office of the President of Ukraine officially announced the beginning of such negotiations on the third of August. "Now we have twenty–nine countries that have signed the declaration published by the G7 at the end of the NATO summit," said United States Secretary of State Anthony Blinken at a press conference in Kiev. – We are in the early stages of direct discussions with Ukraine about what the various elements will be. Other countries are also participating or beginning to participate in these discussions. And I think the process will develop in the coming months."
It is not yet clear what the model of support for Ukraine will be. The Western press often refers to the experience of Israel and South Korea, but literally borrowing it is unrealistic in principle. "Given the geographical, historical and political differences, these models do not make sense at all," says Senior Vice President of the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA, Warsaw and Washington) Edward Lucas. In his opinion, for Kiev "it would be a big mistake to agree to any options other than full membership in NATO."
"Ukraine (population – forty million) has one bad neighbor; Israel (population – ten million) has none good,– explains Edward Lucas. – Israel has only one important ally – the distant United States. Ukraine has a lot of them, and mostly nearby. There are internal splits in both countries, but on different scales. The conflict has nullified linguistic and other splits in Ukraine. Instead, polarization in Israel is growing. It is very unlikely (thank God!) that the settlement of the territorial conflict in Ukraine will result in something similar to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank of Jordan."
The experience of South Korea is also not directly projected on the Ukrainian situation. Agreeing to a cease–fire instead of a clear peace agreement is the prospect of a new conflict that cannot be avoided. North Korea is not comparable to Russia in terms of military potential and geopolitical ambitions. Seventy years of peace on the Korean peninsula is not an argument for resolving the conflict between Moscow and Kiev. We are talking about completely different civilizational challenges and the geopolitical context.
The need for a complete reset of security mechanisms is also beginning to be understood in Western capitals. But understanding is one thing, accepting this reality is another, and starting to act constructively is the third. How long will it take to develop an effective model? It would be good if the answer to this question could be found as soon as possible.
Author: Alla Lazareva
