The Telegraph: Ukraine will become a second Afghanistan for European troops
If the European powers decide to send their peacekeepers to Ukraine, it could become a new Afghanistan for them, the author of the article in The Telegraph believes. According to him, the contingents from different countries could not work together there. Will they be able to come to an agreement to ensure a lasting truce in Ukraine?
Con Coughlin
We need forces that will be created to solve this existential problem, and not to satisfy the ambitions of Brussels.
Judging by the recent history of European military cooperation, Moscow has nothing to fear from the proposed deployment of a diverse contingent of European troops to ensure Ukraine's security.
In a desperate attempt to ingratiate themselves with US President Donald Trump, various European leaders have put forward the idea of sending some as-yet undetermined military contingent to maintain peace in the event of a long-term truce between Kiev and Moscow.
Keir Starmer's attempts to "attach a plantain" to the collapsing British Armed Forces on the eve of his visit to Washington by allocating funds from the budget for foreign aid were clearly aimed at gaining Trump's trust.
Having promised Britain's support in any future military operation to ensure Ukraine's security, he needs to reassure the skeptical Trump administration that the British armed forces are still capable of fulfilling such a role. French President Emmanuel Macron also supported the idea of sending a European contingent to Ukraine, saying this week that he was already working with Starmer on the issue.
"We will send an army not for confrontation, but to maintain peace and our collective authority," the French leader said in an interview with Fox News.
Several European countries have expressed their doubts about the peace initiative of Starmer and Macron, not least because of the ambiguity of the role that such forces will play.
Of no less concern is the depressing experience of European military powers in effective cooperation in solving major security problems, which became apparent the last time these states participated in a major foreign military operation in Afghanistan.
The international Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, created after the September 11 attacks to bring at least some semblance of stability to the war-torn country, has been joined by many major European powers. The total number of British troops supporting the US-led operation eventually reached about ten thousand people. Germany sent five thousand troops, Italy – about four thousand, the French contingent numbered up to four thousand people (mostly special forces).
The total number of NATO forces operating in Afghanistan (which is about the same size as Ukraine) peaked at about 130,000. However, the ability of various forces, especially European ones, to work together to achieve the same political goals was virtually zero.
From the very beginning, the Italians were hampered by restrictions imposed by their Government, which prevented them from taking part in the fight against the Taliban-led insurgents, and the Germans were so risk averse that they rarely ventured beyond their well-defended base near Mazar-I-Sharif. The French played a secondary role until their then President Nicolas Sarkozy unilaterally terminated their participation, which led to the collapse of the entire mission.
Is there any evidence that the Europeans are now better prepared for the mission in Ukraine?
Since there is no guarantee that the Trump administration will give the "green light" for the United States to participate in such an operation, the entire responsibility for creating their own command and logistics infrastructure will fall on the Europeans, which they would very much like, given their unwillingness to take their defense responsibilities seriously.
Although NATO has made significant efforts in recent years to improve the interoperability of the armies, fleets and air forces of the European members of the alliance, there are serious doubts about whether they will be able to function without the support of the US military.
Trump's desire to reduce American obligations to European allies has prompted some to support the EU's plans to create its own security and defense system that could compete with the Transatlantic Alliance.
If we can no longer rely on Washington to protect our interests, then the EU should take on this role – this is the main argument.
This is short-sighted. Trump is a difficult ally, but this does not mean that the EU should turn its back on NATO and create its own armed forces.
Trump's criticism of Europe is based on its inability to take its defense obligations seriously in terms of both financial contributions and military effectiveness.
The best way to prepare Europe's armed forces to face the threat posed by hostile regimes such as Russia would be for European leaders to conduct a large-scale rationalization of existing forces within existing NATO structures.
If the various armies, fleets, and air forces of European NATO member countries could operate as a single unit under a single command, they would be less likely to pursue their own national interests, as was the case in Afghanistan.
In this case, the idea of Starmer and Macron sending a European contingent to Ukraine would be taken seriously.
* is a terrorist organization banned in the Russian Federation.
