What ‘security guarantees’ for Ukraine would actually mean

Following the historical White House meetings this week, President Volodymyr Zelensky says, “It is already working on the concrete content of security guarantees,” he says.

Sir Keir Starmer, after a peace agreement called the “willing coalition”, presides a virtual meeting of nations that are preparing to secure Ukraine.

And British defense chief Admiral Sir Tony Radakin sent Washington to find out how the US could help. The wheels are clearly turning.

But what does “security guarantees” mean in practice?

Here, there is a wide spectrum of “boots on the ground” on Russia’s economic sanctions on oil exports to the threat of injury.

At least for a predictable future, let’s start with what Ukraine wants, and I will not take it, and this is NATO membership.

US President Donald Trump excluded it, but there are many NATO members who quietly opposed, such as Slovakia, will significantly increase the chances of the transatlantic alliance to a firing war with Russia.

Obviously, Ukraine will need strong security guarantees to prevent Russia from returning to a second or third place after a peace agreement has been reached.

For this reason, Sir Keir and French President Emmanuel Macron bring together more than 30 nation coalitions to provide international assurance to Ukraine after a peace agreement has been signed.

The airspace of Ukraine is a possible option. This can be done based on US participation in existing air bases in neighboring Poland or Romania.

However, if they were going to be something other than a symbolic gesture, they would need open and solid participation rules.

In other words, if the pilots violate Russia’s peace agreement, they must know that they cannot retreat or retreat by firing a navigation missile in the city of Ukraine.

The Black Sea is another area where Western security guarantees can help keep Russia’s fleet away and provide the free flow of commercial ships from ports such as Odessa.

The situation on land becomes more problematic. Ukraine is a large country and the façade line currently extends more than 600 miles or 1000km plus.

Even if Russian President Vladimir Putin accepts it, the willing coalition cannot gather enough unity to deploy to protect this line of contact.

The Kremlin reiterated its absolute opposition to the presence of any NATO troops in Ukraine under which badge. For this reason, there will be more in the fields of military support, education, intelligence and logistics support and help Ukraine to rebuild the rotten army and an ongoing arms and ammunition supply.

However, a big question mark remains about what Russia will accept as security guarantees for Ukraine. Many online commentators suggested that Moscow should have no say in this regard.

However, no country in the willing coalition is ready to send troops against Ukraine. Nobody wants to start the Third World War.

John Foreman, a former British military attaché following every bending and return of this conflict in Moscow, said, “Russia can accept a US security guarantee for the US Ukraine for official recognition of occupied regions, and Ukraine can be divided effectively, and in Ukraine, no matter what, no matter what, regardless of, No matter what.

Numerous military experts said that any future “assurance power” provided by the willing coalition should make input from the United States, which is something that Donald Trump refused to commit to the Alaska summit last week.

Now he said the United States would be involved, but in Ukraine without a boat on the ground.

In an ideal world, what Ukraine and its allies want from Washington is both the US support for this conceptual future, and more importantly, if it violates Russia’s peace agreement and seems to renew its attack on Ukraine, the US will be able to support the air force-European.

Trump implied that US air support would be present in some way, but considering how many times he has changed his position on how to end this war, it is less than reassuring.

Lt.gen (RETD), who commands the US army forces in Europe, says Hodges, “the United States will really be serious about security guarantees for Ukraine and will offer more than words”.

“Europeans do not trust Vladimir Putin, and they are not confused about who the attacker is in this war. They are concerned that Trump cannot accept or is not reluctant that Russia is aggressive. Putin will not comply with any agreement unless he has to do so”.

And there is a natural contradiction about security guarantees. You make them robust enough to attack Ukraine again, but isn’t it as solid that Russia oppose them and threatens to target Western beings if they continue without the consent of Moscow?

Former British Defense Minister Sir Ben Wallace believes that the West is not strong enough to stand up to Vladimir Putin.

“The fact that everyone wants to avoid accepting or doing something about everyone does not show the sign that Putin wants to stop killing, or he says.

“Trump or Europe, or both, will be achieved until Putin is preparing to do something to ask for a change.”

Edward Arnold, a European Security Research Assistant in London -based Thinktank Rusi, concludes that the willing coalition is successful in providing a format that can interact with Trump in a constructive way while supporting Ukraine.

However, he warns: “This continues to be a political desire rather than a hardened military structure. The next few months will really test its determination and political risk appetite”.