The NATO 'Friends With Benefits' Neutrality Deal
The Ukrainian deal is on the table, but is it feasible?
The stock markets went up as soon as the news that a peace deal was being considered, but who actually trusts what the Kremlin has said? The West is quite rightly skeptical, and are cautious. Actions (as in will Russia withdraw some troops) speak louder than words. Others are dismayed that Zelenskyy is willing to give up some territory for that is exactly what Putin wants. Let him get away with a bit (like Crimea) and he will keep coming back for more.
What is the Ukrainian proposal for neutrality? It looks very much like a ‘friends with benefits’ relationship with the security guarantors, with some of the benefits of a NATO membership, without having to be a member. Would it be similar to triggering Article 5 (which is once a NATO country is attacked, all must defend it)?
Have Ukraine proffered a neutrality deal laying out what they expect for the next invasion, mirroring what they actually need now?
David Arakhamia of the Ukrainian delegation outlined the proposals for Ukraine accepting a neutral status, which includes international security guarantors:
In the event of war, a military operation, or aggression that a guarantor would be legally obliged to provide military assistance to Ukraine within 3 days.
How could this be enforced? Three days? I would say action must be taken within 48 hours because if the West had intervened within 48 hours of this invasion then it could have been cut short. What if a country doesn’t class an incident as any of the above and choose not to respond?
How long will the guarantor country remain supporting Ukraine—until the war is over? Given that the chances of a guarantor country being activated are high, would the said country need government permission to assist in such a response, will funds be allocated for this provision, and do the people of the country have a say in the matter, knowing that the likelihood of the providing assistance is high?
In the event of a guarantor country providing military aid and then becoming a target by the aggressor, if the said country is a NATO member will Article 5 be triggered?
This assistance would include the provision on ‘no-fly zones’.
The guarantors should be permanent members of the Security Council There are 5, UK, USA, and France, and the other 2 are China and the Russian Federation but Ukraine would also like to include other countries such as Poland, Canada, Israel, Germany, Turkey and Italy.
Obviously the ideal guarantors would be the US, in terms of funding, and we can rule out China and Russia for obvious reasons. I do not think Poland and Italy can offer the support Ukraine desire, Israel and Turkey have remained neutral, therefore the cannot be relied upon for assistance, and Germany has been apprehensive about providing aid. Canada would be a suitable guarantor, but all countries are aware that the likelihood of them having to go to war to support Ukraine is very high.
As much of this is political, some leaders will make decisions based on what the electorate want, and by agreeing to be a guarantor would mean that financially that country will bear the cost of the war and become a target for the aggressors. Would the citizens of a guarantor country agree to it?
The guarantees would not include the Donbas region that are temporarily occupied by Russia.
All guarantor countries should not object to EU membership.
The Ukrainian proposal is direct, and is asking for unofficial military aid from several countries should there be another invasion. It looks like NATO benefits without being a member, and I cannot see the Kremlin agreeing to this. The fact that they walked away to think about it means that they are stalling to regroup and wish the world to see them as reasonable.
The Russians seek a neutrality deal where Ukraine cannot have military aid, thus these negotiations are in their infancy and a tactic by the Russians might be to keep the idea dangling to buy time, where they have no intention of agreeing to the above.
In many ways, Ukraine is telling the West what they need now, because a ceasefire we all know would be temporary and that Russia would attempt another invasion. Some see these talks ‘progress’ because Russia has not rejected them, but everyone is wary because Russia continues to attack other cities in Ukraine.
Another condition is that neutrality would have to be agreed by a referendum by Ukrainians, and that can only happen when there is a genuine ceasefire. What if the people reject neutrality? While Ukrainians have accepted that NATO membership is unlikely at present, on the contrary, surely NATO should be seeking ways to aid countries who require NATO membership?
From what I can see, Ukraine is buying time for the West to deliver aid and to grow a backbone, while Russia is pretending to consider the proposals to regroup and recruit expendable Syrian soldiers. They are offering £37,000 to the families of soldiers who are killed in action, but they are foolish to accept for who will enforce that? Is your life worth £3,000 a month to kill innocent people? There will be people who sign up, but they are the ones being used as cannon fodder, and I doubt their families will see a penny when they die.
Meanwhile, Zelenskyy drums up support around the world with calls to Romania, Pakistan, Denmark, the Republic of Korea, France, UK, USA, and Azerbaijan!
Day 35 (30 March)
Yesterday, the leaders from the US, UK, France, Germany and Italy took part in a call to discuss the crisis and reaffirmed they would support Ukraine.
Reports that the Hungarian government has been involved in pro-Russian activities (as in sharing NATO information) have been circulating in Hungary. While it has not been confirmed, it aligns with Hungary’s reluctance to assist Ukraine beyond humanitarian aid. There are elections in the next few days in the country and whether Orban retains power remains to be seen.
The British police force have donated a kit to help Ukraine dispose and neutralize bombs. The bomb experts were due to go to Ukraine to help train personnel before the invasion, and have collected and sent equipment for them to use.
Ben Wallace, the UK Defence Secretary will host a donor conference on Thursday (tomorrow) to supply lethal aid to Ukraine. This will allow countries to discuss what they can donate in terms of tanks and other weapons that can help Ukraine defend itself.
Russia has stated it will reduce combat around Kyiv and Chernihiv, but states that this is not a ceasefire. Shelling continues in the Donbas region and Mariupol.
The symbol ‘Z’ has been associated with supporting the Russians in this war, and there is merchandise being sold around the world. Ukraine is calling upon nations to denote this as a criminal symbol like the swastika. In Germany some states have declared the use of the symbol in public could lead to prosecution. Lithuania is also considering a similar action.
Several European countries have expelled Russian diplomats among security concerns, which includes spying, and agents who were given diplomatic status as a cover. The countries include; Belgium (21), Ireland (4) the Netherlands (17), Estonia (3), Latvia (3), Lithuania (4) and North Macedonia (5).
Reports state that US troops are ‘liaising’ with Ukrainian troops is Poland and helping with training.
Reports claim that Russian troops are returning to Belarus to replenish their supplies.
Luhansk has been targeted by Russian troops overnight.
Syrian soldiers are being recruited for £3-5,000 a month to fight for Russia. They don’t believe in the war but are doing it for the money. They have been told if they die, their family will receive £37,000.
The Kremlin has stated that Crimea is part of the Russian Federation and is not an issue to be discussed, as a response to the peace talks.
Macron’s attempt to plan an evacuation for Mariupol continues with Putin saying he will ‘think about it’. In other words, that’s a no.
Biden pledges more funds ($500 million) to assist Ukraine today.
The Russians have targeted and destroyed food warehouses and Red Cross areas that are supposed to be out of bounds. It seems that they wish to create a humanitarian crisis. Reports that they do not attack civilians is untrue with many civilians in hospital being shot at for no reason at all.
What boggles my mind is that, if I remember, Georgia also resisted Russia's takeover, with an insurgency that lasted ten years - and it's a far smaller country. In the fullness of time, as HM would say, the grinding war of attrition succeeded and a puppet Russian government was installed. This, in my view, is what is in store for Ukraine, but on a far grander scale.
In other words, there is previous here. Why would the West expect anything else to occur in Ukraine, only far bloodier, more costly to Western governments (which is to say its taxpayers), yet likely to end the same way.
This invasion presented an opportunity to weaken, perhaps fatally, a major problem for the West. All it had to do was ensure that Ukraine was plentifully armed and supported, starting before. If the West had done that in the window of time available, and continued to do so no matter what Putin said, the Ukraine might have actually succeeded where Georgia, after ten years, finally failed.
I do not understand the failure to recognise what a fantastic opportunity this invasion would have been with Ukraine ready to lay it all on the line. Not to mention what it would have cost Putin with regard to his relationship with a now heartily contemptuous China.
And if Putin finally succeeds with a grinding war of attrition, no Marshall Plan would fly to rebuild a valuable asset under Putin's control.
The approach taken guarantees a No Winner scenario - including the West, which has only "won" a reprieve from proving it believes its own press. TC
Ladies and gentlemen people of Australia thank you. Mia in English means dream. We have always been proud of our dream.they are killing our people and civilians, they are taking our children they are taking to our territories. We can say Russia tried to destroy our dream but they have not won .
(I could not keep up typing but mention made of our close proximity to China. )
Very well received address. We have entered an era of greater volatility.