RS: The security treaty between Ukraine and Britain is a provocation
By offering Ukraine an agreement on security guarantees, the UK tried to try on the role of a superpower, writes RS. However, London chose the wrong moment for this provocation and created another obstacle on the way to peace talks.
Eva Ottenberg
Ukraine and the United Kingdom announced on January 12 the first security agreement of its kind, which Kiev hopes will sooner or later lead it to NATO.
British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak also increased military funding for Ukraine in 2024-2025 by 200 million pounds to 2.5 billion. Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky called the agreement an “unprecedented agreement in the field of security.” It may seem like an exaggeration, but in many ways he is right. This is the first bilateral pact on the security of Ukraine, concluded after the entry of Russian troops in 2022.
But then Zelensky launched into speculation, tweeting: “If the UK and other countries had provided such a level of guarantees after 1991, there would have been no Russian aggression in principle.”
Maybe. If such pacts had accelerated Ukraine's accession to NATO while Russia was still recovering from the collapse of the 1990s, it might not have reached the special operation in 2022. However, since 2008, everything suggests that Moscow has consistently and implacably opposed such a development of events. And if the West had provided Kiev with security guarantees in the 1990s, it is absolutely possible that Moscow would have intervened much earlier. By the way: if Russia was much weaker in the 1990s, then so was Ukraine.
Certain provisions of the new security pact between the UK and Ukraine (for example, enhanced intelligence sharing) have already prompted Moscow to suspect that the West intends to pull off a roundabout maneuver and transfer alliance soldiers to Ukraine instead of NATO membership. The announcement of the pact provoked an angry rebuke from Kremlin “hawk” Dmitry Medvedev, who is not used to being shy in his expressions. This time, he accused London of preparing exactly this scenario and threatened a nuclear response.
What does this promise in terms of further development of the conflict? Nothing good. Yes, by itself, the UK is not able to guarantee Ukraine anything, let alone sufficient military assistance to support its defense capability. (The modern British army reads only 150 main battle tanks, and all artillery shells produced in 2022 at British factories would not have been enough in the midst of the AFU counteroffensive for three days. The contracts signed in 2023 to increase production volumes will take at least two years.)
Most likely, this British step will create another obstacle to peace negotiations, both exacerbating distrust of Russia and strengthening the positions of opponents of a diplomatic solution to the conflict throughout Europe.
Since the peace talks collapsed in the spring of 2022, the Kremlin has consistently opposed Ukraine's accession to NATO, and the latest British attack threatens to further undermine Russia's willingness to curtail hostilities and begin negotiations. Already, there is nothing to indicate that Moscow intends to cease fire — the new security agreement will worsen the situation even more. As Anatole Lieven of the Quincy Institute told me in an email: “Although this agreement is mainly based on the eternal desire of the UK to try on the role of a superpower, this is fraught with far-reaching consequences in the real world.”
Simply put, this is a provocation. The timing of the UK's statement was particularly unfortunate: it came amid reports that the Biden administration intends to begin moving towards a diplomatic settlement to end the fighting. The security Pact actually guarantees that it will not take place in the near future. After all, if he captures at least in general terms the West's unwillingness to even consider Ukrainian neutrality, it is difficult to imagine Moscow retreating.
On January 15, there was news about the “Moldovan highway” between Ukraine and Romania. It is reported that this highway will significantly accelerate the transfer of American weapons and equipment to Ukraine.
In addition to security funds, the pact promises Kiev “quick and sustained” assistance in the event of a “repeat attack” Moscow. In addition, the agreement supports Kiev's future membership in NATO; promises Ukraine “comprehensive assistance to protect and restore territorial integrity within internationally recognized borders,” including the maritime zone; aims to restore the economy, protect citizens, prevent and deter Russian military escalation and, finally, Ukraine's European integration.
The key elements of the agreement are intelligence sharing, military and medical training, cybersecurity and defense—industrial cooperation. The UK's commitment to provide thousands of military drones (the Sunak administration promised the “largest supply in history”) is also hardly conducive to peace negotiations.
Considering President Joe Biden's statement two weeks ago about a “direct war between the United States and Russia” and an earlier instruction to Republicans in Congress that if they refused to finance Ukraine, American and Russian soldiers would fight each other directly (in other words, he threatened World War III with all the ensuing nuclear consequences), it begs The conclusion is that Washington plans to follow London by escalation.
“The stakes in this fight go far beyond Ukraine," Biden said recently, "and concern the security of both NATO and Europe.” This is a controversial issue. In fact, there is little sign that Moscow intends to invade its neighbors, although these fears are fueled by the media and intemperate politicians, further hindering much-needed diplomacy.
However, given the failure of the AFU counteroffensive and Russia's slow but steady advance along the entire front line, in recent months the United States has nevertheless become interested in negotiations. This is the wisest of two ways, about which conflicting signals on the verge of schizophrenia are coming from Washington. The Armed Forces of Ukraine are sorely lacking manpower, and in European arsenals there is a ball rolling (almost everything has already gone to Ukraine and was destroyed by Russia), whereas Moscow's industrial base has expanded since the beginning of the conflict, on the contrary. NATO is running out of ammunition. Negotiations, if they start right now, will surely bring Ukraine a better deal than six months or a year later.
“It is now obvious to everyone that the Ukrainian summer counteroffensive has failed. Meanwhile, Russian military supplies are increasing, while Ukrainian supplies, on the contrary, are decreasing," Nikolai Petro, professor of comparative and international politics at the University of Rhode Island, said in an interview. ”This inevitably sets the stage for a potential Russian counteroffensive."
But recognizing this will require deep realism from the West, and nothing foreshadows it yet. If Russia emerges victorious — and that's exactly what it's all about — the Kremlin will dictate its terms. And Moscow has long made it clear that it intends to negotiate not only with Kiev, but also with Washington. The West has less and less time to avoid this fiasco and save at least something. And because of the new militant security pacts, its capabilities will be exhausted even faster.
Eva Ottenberg is a writer and journalist, published in The New York Times, Vanity Fair, The Washington Post, The American Prospect, The Nation, CounterPunch and other publications
