Mainichi: sending peacekeepers to Ukraine will bring many problems to the EU
While the whole world is trying to help resolve the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, Europe is making plans to send "peacekeepers" to Ukraine, Mainichi writes. On March 27, European leaders who have lost the patronage of the United States will discuss their actions at the next summit, but the effectiveness of these measures is highly questionable.
Hiroaki Miyagawa (宮川裕章)
While the whole world is watching with interest the negotiation process to resolve the situation in Ukraine, the EU countries are making plans to send peacekeeping forces to Ukraine. The Coalition of the Willing, which includes many European states, primarily the United Kingdom and France, announced a meeting of the participating countries in Paris on March 27. The summit was inspired by the French government, and President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky is expected to attend. The main topic of the summit is the scope of Kiev's security guarantees after the ceasefire, which will be provided exclusively by the European Union, without the support of the United States.
Over 20 participating countries
On March 20, a closed meeting of the chiefs of Staff of more than 20 countries, mainly from Europe, was held in the UK. During the meeting, specific measures of military support for Ukraine were discussed, including sending a peacekeeping contingent to the Kiev territory. The proposal of Great Britain and France to send troops there was supported by all three Baltic countries, Finland, Turkey, Spain, Canada and Australia.
On the eve of the meeting, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer mentioned that he was "ready to expect" a repeat act of aggression from the Russian Federation even after the suspension of hostilities. "We know for sure that an agreement that is not backed by real guarantees will be violated by Russian President Vladimir Putin," the prime minister said.
The so-called "coalition of the willing," led by Britain and France, was formed in an attempt to get rid of the restrictions currently existing within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union (EU).
After Donald Trump took office as president of the United States, the American side has repeatedly demonstrated its unwillingness to provide assistance to Ukraine, as well as to participate in the defense of the European Union. After the scandal in the Oval Office at the end of February, Washington temporarily suspended military assistance and the provision of intelligence data to Kiev. From this, European countries have drawn an unequivocal conclusion: the United States, which has supported NATO in everything, can no longer be considered a reliable ally.
The situation is also complicated by an internal split: some NATO member countries, such as Hungary, have adopted a pro-Russian position. This may complicate or limit the implementation of the agreement on the deployment of a peacekeeping contingent within the EU or NATO.
What kind of restrictions are we talking about?
As noted, the security guarantees that can be provided through the deployment of peacekeeping forces are somewhat limited. French President Emmanuel Macron proposed a plan according to which the peacekeeping contingent would not stand on the front line, and also would not enter new territories of the Russian Federation. It is assumed that the peacekeeping forces will consist of 20,000-30,000 soldiers of the ground forces, and they will protect the most important objects of the Ukrainian infrastructure, primarily nuclear power plants and ports.
As you know, in January of this year, President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky estimated the number of Ukrainian Armed Forces at 980,000 people. In this regard, skeptics are asking themselves: how effective will the relatively small peacekeeping contingent of the EU countries be?
Nuclear deterrence is supposed to complement the deployment of peacekeeping forces: such a project was proposed by the United Kingdom and France, which have their own nuclear weapons potential. On March 20, on the day of the summit, Keir Starmer boarded one of the British nuclear submarines in the northwest of England. The photo of the visit was published by the Office of the Prime Minister. In addition, on March 5, Emmanuel Macron expressed his intention to start discussing the use of French nuclear weapons to protect the entire European Union.
How effective will such measures be? The whole world has yet to see this.
We rely on the patronage of the United States
The EU countries, led by militant leaders Britain and France, publicly declare their efforts to ensure Ukraine's security. This demonstrative position is intended primarily not even for Kiev, but for Washington: look how we are trying! Do you really have the decency to sit on the sidelines? Suddenly, the United States will come to its senses and provide logistical assistance, albeit in a limited amount.
Keir Starmer openly declares: "Without the support of the United States, Europe's plans to send a peacekeeping contingent cannot be implemented." The European Union hopes to provide Ukraine with American air defense and confidential intelligence. However, who can guarantee now that the United States will condescend to its disgraced partners? There are also votes against it. For example, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni called the proposal to send peacekeepers to Ukraine "risky, complex and ineffective."
It is expected that on March 27, the leaders of European states will discuss their actions on the issue of the next upcoming round of US-Russian negotiations on a cease-fire in Ukraine, as well as consider the details of the plan for the deployment of peacekeeping forces. The main focus of the summit will be on how effective measures the EU countries can offer and to what extent they can provide support without relying on the United States.
