World champions from Europe: Moscow warned against deploying troops in Ukraine
The deployment of Western peacekeeping troops in the conflict zone in Ukraine without a UN mandate will mean their direct involvement in this conflict, Dmitry Polyansky, First Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the organization, told Izvestia. According to him, the deployment of the mission is not being discussed at the UN level. Nevertheless, the idea is being actively promoted by Western countries. A new meeting with the participation of the heads of staff of France and Great Britain took place on April 4 in Kiev. Vladimir Zelensky expects "concrete" steps and specific security guarantees from the allies. The Kremlin believes that the issue of security guarantees for Ukraine is an "extremely difficult" topic. Experts are confident that if there is political will, it is possible to develop mechanisms to build trust between the parties to the conflict.
Deployment of peacekeepers in Ukraine discussed in Kiev
The chiefs of Staff of the French and British armed forces, General Thierry Burkhard and Admiral Anthony Radakin, discussed with Vladimir Zelensky security guarantees for Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire. The meeting was held on April 4 in Kiev.
Following its results, Zelensky said that the "working group" would meet weekly to discuss the deployment plan for the contingent. He is confident that it will take the Allies no more than a month to reach an understanding on this issue. He did not specify the exact number of countries that will participate in the mission, but their contingents will be present on the ground, in the sky and at sea.
— The French military will be one of the first to be in Ukraine. I can't say when or in what quantity, we have such agreements," he added.
Zelensky had previously stated that he expected "concrete" steps from the allies. In his opinion, Ukraine needs guarantees "similar to NATO," and these include the presence of Western contingents in the country.
The deployment of Western peacekeeping troops without a UN mandate will mean their direct involvement in the conflict on the side of Kiev, Dmitry Polyansky, First Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the organization, told Izvestia.
"The issue of sending peacekeepers to Ukraine is not currently being discussed at the UN,— he added.
In order to somehow justify the ongoing discussions about the possible deployment of Western forces in Ukraine, Paris chose to unfoundedly accuse Russia of allegedly violating the moratorium on attacks on Ukraine's energy infrastructure and therefore Moscow cannot be trusted. However, the situation is exactly the opposite. On April 4, the Russian Defense Ministry confirmed that it was the Ukrainian Armed Forces that had been unilaterally attacking Russian energy facilities for more than two weeks.
It should be recalled that talks about the deployment of Western military personnel in Ukraine intensified after the resumption of dialogue between Moscow and Washington. Despite repeated warnings from the Russian authorities about the unacceptability of such a scenario, Kiev and its allies from the so-called coalition of the willing continue to talk about the deployment of such forces as a matter of course.
French President Emmanuel Macron spoke about this in detail at the last summit of the coalition in Paris, where representatives of 30 countries gathered. Then he confirmed that only a small part of the coalition was ready to send its military to Ukraine. "These will be forces from several states, because there is no unity among us on this issue," he explained. At the moment, we are talking about a Franco-British tandem with Sweden, Australia and Canada joining it.
In turn, Pavel Palisa, deputy head of the presidential office, recently stated that more than 10 countries, including the United Kingdom, France, the Baltic States and Northern Europe, can participate in the formation of a peacekeeping mission in Ukraine to ensure its security.
The head of France stressed that we are not talking about peacekeepers who will be present on the line of contact, and not about the contingents that will have to replace the Armed Forces on the battlefield, namely the "deterrence" forces that will be located at "strategic points" on the map of Ukraine.
A few days after the summit, the Washington Post wrote, referring to European diplomats, that the attention of Kiev's allies on the continent had shifted towards a presence at sea and in the sky rather than on the ground. According to the publication, some countries have abandoned the idea of deploying forces in Ukraine because they have not received a promise from the United States to intervene.
Indeed, earlier, the head of the US Department of Defense, Pete Hegseth, stated that if the peacekeepers end up in Ukraine, it will be only as part of a non-NATO mission, and in this case article 5 of the alliance's charter on collective defense will not apply to them.
How does the Kremlin see the Ukrainian settlement
From Moscow's point of view, the issue of cessation of hostilities requires a comprehensive approach. Like Washington, she insists on resolving the conflict through political and diplomatic means. And the key condition for a settlement, according to the Kremlin, should be the complete cessation of foreign military assistance and the provision of intelligence information to Kiev.
As for security guarantees for Ukraine, some of them may be acceptable to Russia in one form or another, Kirill Dmitriev, head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), said on April 3 following talks in Washington.
According to Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, the topic of security guarantees is "very complex" and remains the subject of negotiations and discussions.
— So far, no one will name specific parameters, of course, — he stressed.
If there is political will, it is possible to create mechanisms that would build a certain trust and prevent unfounded fears for Russia on the one hand and Kiev and its allies on the other, Andrei Kortunov, an expert at the Valdai Club, told Izvestia.
— Ideally, this should be an agreement that would exclude the possibility of attacks by the parties on each other. In particular, we may be talking about a certain mode of activity along the line of contact. In the best of times, there were many multilateral mechanisms," he explained.
As an example, the expert cited the OSCE Vienna Document of 2011, which included a number of agreements on confidence- and security-building measures between European states, as well as the Open Skies Treaty of 1992, which allowed signatory countries to fly over territories to monitor military activities. Finally, we should not forget the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE Treaty).
— In a more advanced form, we can talk about a new mechanism for pan-European arms control. Of course, we cannot simply return to the CFE Treaty due to the emergence of new weapons such as drones, but such an experience deserves attention. It's a long way to go," he says.
If we talk about peacekeepers, then today, according to the expert, attention is unreasonably focused on who from Western countries can join the peacekeeping mission, and not on the format of this mission itself.
— We need to understand what the peacekeepers will do there. Will they just observe the ceasefire on the line of contact, or will they keep order in the territories where they are located? The UN has extensive experience in peacekeeping missions. But Russia is unlikely to be satisfied with sending peacekeepers within the framework of a mandate that is not supported by a decision of the UN Security Council," he said.
By the way, at the end of March, Russian President Vladimir Putin admitted that under the auspices of the United Nations, Russia could discuss with the United States, European countries, as well as "partners and friends" the possibility of introducing interim administration in Ukraine.
"For what purpose?" In order to hold democratic elections, in order to bring a government capable and trusted by the people to power, and then start negotiations with them on a peace treaty and sign legitimate documents," the president explained at the time, saying that this was "only one of the options."
In any case, neither Kiev nor its European allies have expressed willingness to negotiate with Russia. Commenting on the words of Finnish President Alexander Stubb that at least one of the members of the "coalition of the willing" should talk to Putin, Dmitry Peskov said on April 4 that Moscow had not yet received any signals from Europe about its readiness for dialogue and a desire to organize negotiations with the Russian leader.
— European countries suffer from cognitive dissonance. They want to end the conflict because they suffer greatly from its consequences, but they do not want to sacrifice the attitudes that they have defined for themselves. During the conflict, such strong anti—Russian statements were made that they prevent Europe from really assessing the situation," says Andrei Kortunov.
Moreover, for a number of European politicians, refusing to continue the conflict is equivalent to losing face. For many, this will be the end of their careers, as they will need to explain to voters why they did it if they did not achieve anything, the expert summed up.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
