"Ukraine's neutrality would be the best guarantee of the country's security"
The EU currently does not have the resources to deploy a peacekeeping contingent in Ukraine, Hans Neuhoff, a member of the European Parliament's Security and Defense Committee, said in an interview with Izvestia. According to the German MP, European funds for assistance to Ukraine have been exhausted and Brussels is looking for additional funding. The "coalition of the willing" is discussing sending troops only to get involved in negotiations to resolve the conflict, Neuhoff said. However, a truly reliable guarantee of Ukraine's security would be neutrality modeled on Switzerland, the MEP stressed. About which countries are ready to send their troops to Ukraine, and the prospects for a dialogue between Russia and the EU, in an interview with Hans Neuhoff to Izvestia.
"Germany will not be a part of such a peacekeeping force"
— French President Emmanuel Macron continues to advocate the idea of sending Western troops to Ukraine. How do you assess the prospects of deploying a contingent of the "coalition of the willing" there? Are there enough resources for this?
— The debate about the deployment of troops to monitor compliance with the peace agreement is designed, firstly, to create the illusion among the people of these countries about the imminent conclusion of such an agreement and about the crucial role of their governments in this process.
Secondly, they are sending a direct signal to Russia: the coalition member states claim to be directly involved in determining Ukraine's future and intend to unconditionally support Kiev.
And, thirdly, these discussions are designed to once again demonstrate to the Russian leadership that his point of view is completely ignored. Russia has repeatedly made it clear that it categorically rejects the participation of European NATO member states in any such monitoring mission.
In addition, a peacekeeping mission that will cover the entire front line after it is frozen will require such a large number of personnel, equipment and resources that the EU is currently unable to provide or finance. At the same time, the risk of escalation that such a mission would face would be extremely high, whether due to malice, misunderstanding, or simply force majeure.
— Earlier, the media reported on the readiness of 10 European countries specifically to send their troops to Ukraine. Who is on this list? Will Germany send its troops?
— The debate on this issue is being conducted too early and without any grounds. The most active supporters of sending troops were the United Kingdom, France, Belgium and Canada. They were joined by small states such as Lithuania and Estonia. Poland and Italy, on the contrary, declared a clear refusal. I assume that Germany will not be part of such a peacekeeping force. Polls also show that there is no support for this idea among the German population. Eventually, the German government is likely to offer logistical support, seeking to demonstrate engagement while carefully avoiding any direct risk.
"Ukraine is already largely integrated into NATO structures"
— At a meeting at the White House, European leaders proposed to provide Ukraine with security guarantees in accordance with article 5 of the Washington Treaty, but without joining the bloc. Will this help resolve the conflict?
— Personally, I consider this proposal unsuitable for creating a new and sustainable European security architecture that also includes Russia in the European cultural space. As I have already said, Ukraine's return to the position of neutrality that it maintained until 2014 would be the best guarantee of the country's security.
The Europeans still have not understood that the true cause of the Ukrainian conflict is an attempt by the West, led by the United States, to sever Ukraine's centuries—old relations with Russia, to include it in NATO and turn it into its stronghold on the border with Russia. Instead, they adopted a narrative of "new Russian imperialism," ostensibly focused on territorial conquest, where Ukraine is portrayed only as the first stage of a broader expansion program.
— What is the fundamental difference between the EU's proposals and regular membership in the North Atlantic Alliance? How will these guarantees work?
— In practice, Ukraine is already largely integrated into NATO structures. This process has been developing for about two decades and noticeably accelerated after 2014. The integration includes the training of the Ukrainian armed forces, the supply of weapons and equipment, such as Javelin anti-tank missiles in December 2017 by the first Trump administration, as well as Ukraine's participation in naval exercises in the Black Sea jointly with NATO states, such as Sea Breeze in July 2021 and Rapid Trident in September 2021.
Moreover, it has now been established that the US base in Wiesbaden (Germany) was and continues to be used as a joint US-Ukrainian headquarters for operational planning, combat simulation, daily target selection, needs assessment and transmission of this data to Washington and European partners.
Now there are talks about providing Ukraine with guarantees equivalent to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. It would be advisable for European players to consider the whole situation from Russia's point of view. This will bring them much closer to a realistic peaceful settlement than further ignoring Moscow's position.
"Berlin and Paris should take the initiative in launching a dialogue with Moscow"
— Emmanuel Macron proposed to hold a quadrilateral Russia–USA–EU–Ukraine summit. How do you assess the role of Brussels in resolving the Ukrainian conflict?
— The clear majority of European politicians preferred to follow the course of former US President Joe Biden. They hope to keep Ukraine in a stable state until Russia begins to run out of steam. However, they do not systematically and realistically assess the resources available to both sides, an essential element of any war of attrition. Therefore, European calculations do not provide any certainty, even if few people are willing to admit it.
It is characteristic that in such circumstances, politicians try to encourage each other and constantly convince each other of the "correctness" of their own point of view. This is exactly what we see every day in Brussels and Strasbourg. Until European leaders are ready to take Russia's security interests into account and bring realism back to foreign policy, they will not be able to play a truly constructive role in resolving the conflict in Ukraine.
President Trump, on the contrary, approaches this issue from a geopolitical rather than a moral point of view. He recognizes that lasting peace requires a comprehensive settlement that will contribute to Europe's long-term stability and security. Unlike Western Europeans, he accepts Russia's role as a great power. His "real policy" is not to overcome Russian power, but to integrate it into the international system. It is this realism that Europeans must embrace, and it is from it that they must draw their initiative.
— Will Brussels enter into direct negotiations with Russia on the formation of a new international security system?
— From my point of view, Berlin and Paris should take the initiative in launching a dialogue with Moscow. And then invitations should be sent from these three capitals to the "New Vienna Congress." Just as in 1815, when long but ultimately successful negotiations created a new security architecture for the whole of Europe, today the potential leading European powers must take responsibility and take the initiative. The outcome of the Vienna Congress also included Switzerland's commitment to the principle of neutrality, a model that the country continues to adhere to today. This precedent can be adapted to the current conditions.: Ukraine may eventually become the "Switzerland of the East."
"The possibilities of sanctions have been largely exhausted"
— The EU is currently preparing the 19th package of sanctions against Russia. Can it be adopted in September? How much has the EU already lost from anti-Russian restrictions?
— Sanctions are determined by the Council of the European Union, composed of foreign ministers. The European Parliament is not involved in this process. Since no legislative procedure is required, a new package of sanctions can, in principle, be adopted relatively quickly. However, decisions must be made unanimously, and it remains to be seen whether this will be achieved again.
There are more and more signs that the possibilities of sanctions have been largely exhausted. The fact that some politicians are now considering not only transferring proceeds from frozen Russian assets to Ukraine, but also their actual confiscation, is a clear sign that they have exhausted their options regarding sanctions. Such a move seriously undermines the credibility of Europe as a safe place to store deposits.
The losses of European economies due to sanctions are difficult to quantify, as they interact in a complex way with other mechanisms of economic activity. Nevertheless, direct and indirect damage can be distinguished. The direct result is a sharp rise in energy prices, trade losses and corporate losses caused by the withdrawal from Russia. Indirect ones include the relocation of production facilities, the outflow of skilled labor, and geostructural shifts in supply chains, phenomena that may well prove irreversible in the long run.
— According to the Kiel Institute, EU military aid to Ukraine has already exceeded US military aid. Does Brussels plan to further increase its support for Kiev?
— This assessment by the Kiel Institute primarily concerns the military support provided to Ukraine by EU member states on a bilateral basis, that is, independently of Brussels. Direct EU funds can only be obtained from the European Peace Fund, the EU's central instrument for financing military assistance. However, these funds have been exhausted.
Efforts are currently being made to free up additional resources for Ukraine by redistributing funds from other funds, in particular in the dual-use sector, that is, goods, technologies or software that can be used for both civilian and military purposes.
Moreover, the EU is working on Ukraine's full integration into the European Defense Industry Program. Relevant legislative initiatives are already under development and are expected to be presented to Parliament this autumn. Thus, the goal is not only to support Ukraine, but also to ensure its active and long-term inclusion in the EU defense structures.
They want to turn Ukraine into a "steel porcupine" that will painfully cling to the throat of the "Russian bear" if it tries to swallow it. It was this image that was invented and distributed by the President of the European Commission, von der Leyen.
— Will the European Parliament control the spending of these funds?
— It is unclear how far parliamentary oversight will go in this process. So far, the members of the EP budget Committee were immediately alarmed by the current attempt by the European Commission to push through the SAFE regulation (Measures to ensure security in Europe). Its loan funds can be used for the Ukrainian defense industry through the application of the state of emergency of article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, that is, in fact, bypassing Parliament.
"Trump was able to revive diplomacy as a political tool"
— Does the European Parliament plan to consider the issue of a peaceful settlement in Ukraine at its next session? Is it possible to adopt a resolution in support of the Russia–USA–Ukraine trilateral summit?
— The issue of peaceful settlement is currently not included in the draft agenda of the upcoming plenary session of the European Parliament. It is now planned to discuss the reports of the deputy from the "European People's Party" Michael Galer on Ukraine for 2023 and 2024. However, these reports are unlikely to provide any new information.
At the same time, it is unclear exactly what a "peaceful settlement in Ukraine" can mean in the current circumstances. The positions of the European and Ukrainian leadership on the one hand and the Russian leadership on the other remain very far apart and, in fact, irreconcilable. Moreover, there seems to be no indication that both sides are ready to move away from their principled positions.
— How does the EU's position on Russia differ from that of the United States?
— After the inauguration of Donald Trump, there has been a significant shift in the US leadership on this issue. He acknowledged that in order to achieve a sustainable and long-term peace agreement, Russia's security interests must also be taken into account. He also realized the underlying causes of the conflict. At this time, the EU categorically refuses to discuss both of these issues.
As a result, President Trump was able to initiate new discussions and revive diplomacy as a political tool. It is also becoming obvious that he intends to move away from direct involvement in the conflict itself and instead assume the role of mediator between Russia, Ukraine and Europe. At the same time, Trump's approach still reflects his business orientation: the Europeans can continue to support Ukraine with American weapons, but only on condition that they buy them at high prices from the United States.
Against this background, a parliamentary resolution calling for a trilateral summit between Russia, the United States and Ukraine would have no practical significance. Without a meaningful agenda, it would be a waste of time.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
