If a truce is concluded, Western countries will send their troops to Ukraine, but they will only insure, not replace, the Ukrainian army. Such a conclusion can be drawn following the meeting of the defense ministers of the countries that are part of the “coalition of the willing.” In Kiev, however, they see the future mission somewhat differently. They hope that it will become a guarantee of Ukraine’s support in case the truce breaks down and the Russian Federation resumes hostilities.
A meeting of the heads of defense departments of the “coalition of the willing” (or “coalition of the resolute” – this coalition, which includes 31 countries, has two names) was held at the NATO headquarters in Brussels. She was hosted by British Defense Minister John Healy and French Defense Minister Sebastien Lecorny. London and Paris initiated the creation of this coalition. To date, the United Kingdom and France are the only participants in it that are unconditionally ready to send their troops to Ukraine. Other countries that are part of the coalition (and these are not only European countries, but also Turkey, Australia, New Zealand, Canada) are still arranging the participation of their military in the future mission with certain conditions. The most common of them is that the introduction of troops is possible only when the cessation of hostilities is fixed by some kind of legal document.
The United States is not in the “coalition of the willing.” This is the principled position of the Donald Trump administration. She insists that European security issues should be addressed primarily by European countries. Trump’s plans assign Americans the role of only those who will achieve peace between Russia and Ukraine, and it is the task of the US allies to make it lasting. This creates severe inconveniences in the process of the activities of the “coalition of the willing.” Washington is negotiating peace and its terms, and completely different countries are negotiating guarantees of compliance with these conditions. Therefore, the statements of the participants of the “coalition of the willing” about the prospects of a future peacekeeping mission are sinful of being vague.
Meanwhile, before the meeting in Brussels, the Ukrainian authorities tried to publicly and clearly outline how Kiev sees the future military presence of Western troops in the country. Pavlo Palisa, Adviser to the President of Ukraine on defense issues, told reporters that the mission of the “coalition of the willing” should not be solely of a monitoring nature. At a minimum, the introduction of Western troops should include the use of air defense forces, which should cover both peacekeepers and Ukrainians, the Ukrainian official said. “For example, if a French brigade enters a certain area, even if it is deployed with a minimum density, such as three soldiers per kilometer, it will still have to provide air cover. This is the standard of military planning,” Palisa said. The brigade has from 3 thousand to 5 thousand military personnel. Thus, Kiev sees the mission of the “coalition of the willing” as quite numerous and with very large powers. In the view of the Ukrainian authorities, this will not be an analogue of the UN blue helmets. In fact, the “coalition of the willing” should become a safety net for the Ukrainian military in case Russian troops go on the offensive, interrupting the truce. It is no coincidence that Palisa emphasized that the Baltic and Northern European countries, whose governments are the most pro-Ukrainian in the EU, should participate in the mission.
The Minister of Defense of Ukraine Rustem Umerov probably told the participants of the meeting in Brussels the same thing. Judging by what the other participants of the event said, the Ukrainian opinion was taken into account, but not the fact that it was approved. For example, the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Kaya Kallas, said in her speech at the meeting that various formats of the mission would be discussed in Brussels. “We are considering a monitoring mission, a peacekeeping mission, a deterrence mission, and a reinforcement mission,” she argued. And Healy said that the coalition has plans that can be reduced to four points. “First, to ensure a safe sky. Secondly, to ensure a safe sea. Thirdly, to maintain peace on earth. And fourthly, to support the Ukrainian armed forces so that they become the strongest deterrent,” the British Minister of Defense listed, leaving the Ukrainian listeners lost in guesses. Who will ensure the safety of the “sky and sea”, the coalition members or Ukraine? And why are the Ukrainian, and not the Western military, called the “strongest deterrent”? At least the journalists who attended the meeting did not receive answers to all these questions.
According to Palisa, 10-12 more countries are ready to join the “coalition of the willing.” He did not say which ones. Both Ukrainian and Western officials, for obvious reasons, avoid the issue of the timing of the appearance of a peacekeeping mission in Ukraine. After all, it is still highly unclear when exactly the truce will be and whether it will be at all. There were reports in the press that Trump expects a cease-fire by April 20. If it does, it turns out that the Western peacekeepers are not ready for this date. However, there are few signs that a truce is really around the corner.Â
***
The attempts on the one hand to stop the conflict, and on the other to avoid strengthening the position of the Russian Federation, were followed by the authors of socio-political Telegram channels. “The last round of negotiations with the Americans, at which the issue of a peaceful settlement was definitely in the main focus, was Riyadh, on March 24 (Dmitriev’s visit to Washington in early April had this topic on the agenda, but rather tangentially),” writes Adequate. – Today, half a month later, Peskov says, or rather, confirms once again: there is no time frame for a settlement, but there is an understanding that, with all the desire to hurry, the priority is not to hurry, but to respect our interests. And this is not even a reaction to attempts to rush us somewhere, which took place at the junction of March and April at the level of first Trump and then Rubio, but rather a rather routine statement: we will not force anything to harm us, if we want to move faster, we must not try to put pressure on us and even more so frighten us, but mature up to our terms.”
“The FOM published very timely numbers,” the authors of the Muesli Aloud channel draw attention to. – The researchers asked the people about Western sanctions. 57% are sure that sanctions do not affect them personally and their lifestyle at all; 25% believe that they do not affect them very much; 12% see a strong impact of sanctions. 33% believe that sanctions contribute to the growth of the Russian economy; 24% – sanctions slow down the economy, but do not lead to a deep crisis; 21% – sanctions do not have a noticeable effect; 7% – because of sanctions, the Russian economy is declining.”
