Ukraine; A war without a red line

Eviralnews– Maryam Kharmai: “Consensus” is what hasn't happened yet; Not about sending military trainers (consultants) to Ukraine, not about attacking Russian territory using Western weapons, not even about providing financial aid to Kiev.

Regarding the last case, they (the European Union) say that Hungary is their Achilles' heel. With its right of veto, Budapest has taken hostage the package of military aid to Ukraine from the “European Peace Facility”. This aid package has a total value of 6.5 billion euros, which includes 500 million euros to repay military aid to Ukraine and an additional 5 billion euros that was supposed to be added to the budget of the European Peace Facility.

The impasse could also jeopardize a new agreement to use extraordinary revenues from seized Russian assets – a project that Euronews claims could bring in between 2.5 and 3 billion euros a year, 90 percent of which would be used to provide weapons and equipment. Ammunition will be for Ukraine.

Here, although the bar is high, the EU hopes to bring the rogue member with it by any trick.

But the difference regarding the other two cases ie “Sending military trainers to Ukraine” And “Attack on Russian territory using Western weapons” It is of a different gender.

These are two separate issues that are followed by two working groups in parallel:

* The first working group With the support of three Baltic countries (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia) and to some extent Poland, French President Emmanuel Macron is pursuing the issue of sending combat forces or advisors to Ukraine.

* The second working group It is wider and includes NATO, England and a number of first-class members of the European Union, including Germany and France, who are maneuvering on the issue of attacking Russian territory using Western weapons.

When it comes to the issue of parallel work, the overlap and conflict of interests will undoubtedly be discussed. But here it seems that we are facing more division of labor than parallel work, and in the end, the goal of both working groups is the same: “to play so that Russia does not read our hand.”

We are talking about deterrence and we should see both issues of sending troops and using Western weapons against Russian soil as a package; It seems that there is no consensus about them.

About four months ago, Macron proposed sending combat troops to Ukraine for the first time. At that time, the United States, most of the European countries and NATO said that they would not accept this idea in order to avoid the opening of the Western bloc to war.

But, despite the partners' denials, the French president insisted that “many EU countries agree with the approach of Paris regarding the possible deployment of troops to Ukraine.” However, this idea was reduced to sending an advisory force instead of a military force.

Kyiv announced just two days ago that the first group of French military instructors will soon arrive in Ukraine. The French Ministry of Defense neither confirmed nor denied this claim. But he said that education in Ukraine is one of the projects that have been discussed and discussed since the establishment of the conference to support Ukraine.

Denying, insisting and evading confirmation or denial on the issue of sending troops to Ukraine can be considered an attempt to hide playing cards from Russia's eyes.

Even when EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell announced on Tuesday that there was a disagreement among EU members about sending military trainers to Ukraine, he tried to say that anyway “the defense ministers of the EU have discussed this issue in their recent meeting”. ; Increase its importance in the eyes of the media.

To complete this strategy, the second working group started its work on May 3 (May 14) and about two months after France put the possibility of sending troops to Ukraine on the table, with the lead of England.

At the time, British Foreign Secretary David Cameron, in an unexpected comment, said it was up to Ukraine to decide how it wanted to use British weapons and insisted that the country had the right to attack targets inside Russia.

This comment, which was immediately assessed by Moscow as “a very dangerous statement” with the potential to directly escalate tensions, remained silent until a few days ago, when NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg brought it up again.

Stoltenberg says that not allowing Ukraine to use Western weapons to attack targets inside the territory of Russia is like tying one of Kiev's hands behind its back.

The attack deep into Russian territory using western weapons, with the condition that only military sites are targeted, under the label of “right to self-defense”, was immediately approved by the heads of France and Germany, and in the media, with the addition that America is still against this action. It was presented to the audience.

While the United States is the largest funder of the North Atlantic Treaty, how can the NATO Secretary General make such a bold proposal despite Washington's opposition and get a positive response from the first two powers of the European Union?

The show of American opposition is the first ambiguous point of the story.

On Tuesday, in a concerted move, EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell announced that there was no consensus among members on the issue, saying that “the attack is in self-defense according to international law and if it is carried out in a proper manner; It is a legitimate action.”

He also said that “this is a decision that should be taken independently and no one can challenge the decision of any member to allow Ukraine to take such action.”

This is the second ambiguity raised by the working group in favor of using Western weapons to attack Russian positions:

Moscow considers the use of Western weapons to attack the depth of its territory as a direct intervention of third countries and as a declaration of war, and the European Union, while agreeing to this issue, considers it an individual decision and subject to the right of independence of the members, many of whom are in a package called NATO is also a member, and according to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, a Russian attack on any of them activates the principle of collective defense.

Another ambiguity comes from Macron's claims two days ago, that after supporting Ukraine's armed action, he immediately said that there has been no change in Europe's position and that we do not want to escalate the tension.

German Chancellor Olaf Schultz confirmed this and said: As long as Ukraine respects the conditions provided by the countries that supply weapons, including the United States, and international laws, it is allowed to defend itself. (This is the same man who banned the use of German weapons to attack Russian territory on June 6!)

First question: When Russia is targeted by Western weapons, how can we not expect the escalation of tension, as Macron said?

Second question: When the United States, as the main military supporter of Kyiv, is against using its weapons against Russia, how does Ukraine want to do this?

The ambiguity in answering the first question means that the Western bloc wants the red lines to remain undefined.

The ambiguity in answering the second question means that in the end America gives the green light to carry out the threats.

At the moment we are writing this article, “Anthony Blinken” US Secretary of State To the face implied From open to be Likely to agree Government atmosphere Biden With Attacks Ukraine To Soil Russia With Use From weapons Americanthe news gave.

He said that the States United ready “adjustment And correction» subject self At this Background On basis change Conditions At Square War Is.

But immediately following the ambiguous approach of Washington's allies, he added: States United Yet action To Empowerment Or persuasion Ukraine To do Such attacks To Soil Russia did not Is. this Ukrainians are That Must about how defense From themselves Decision take.

In the current situation, Washington talks about a threat that is only a possibility and ties the green light to Ukraine to attack Russian territory with the use of American weapons to the circumstances and conditions in the field.

On the other side, Russian President Vladimir Putin raises a new question and throws the ball to the opponent's field. His question is: “Continuous escalation of tension can have serious consequences. Now, if these serious consequences occur in Europe, then how will the United States respond, given our parity in strategic (nuclear) armaments? It is difficult to say the answer to this question, but do they want a world war?

Then he warned the European members of NATO, which are small countries, that “they have to be aware of the game they are playing, because they have a small land area and a very dense population. This is a factor that they should consider before talking about an attack deep into Russian soil.”

The red lines are ambiguous, the threats are contradictory, and experience shows that in such situations, the parties are as willing to walk to the negotiating table as they are to arms.

According to Putin, Russia has never refused to negotiate and is still ready to continue the process of negotiations regarding Ukraine. Even not long ago, “Reuters” quoted informed sources and wrote that “Putin is ready to be satisfied with the territory he has now and stop the conflict on the current frontline, although he will continue the war if Kiev and the West do not respond.” “

In June, Switzerland is hosting a meeting on the issue of peace in Ukraine – a meeting that US President Joe Biden is apparently absent due to his preoccupation with the election, and China as another important guest, sending a message that Beijing supports a peace conference held by Moscow and Kyiv should be recognized. But until this moment, Moscow does not have a favorable opinion of the Swiss conference and does not see a prospect for resolving the conflict in it.

However, “Bloomberg” reported that the European Union hopes to reach another meeting from the Swiss conference this summer, which will be hosted by Saudi Arabia and a delegation from Russia will participate. Of course, at the current stage, the Kremlin has rejected such a plan.

The procrastination of the West to rearm Kiev has changed the balance of the field in favor of Russia to the extent that Ukraine can only maintain the existing conditions until the end of 2024 at best and has no hope of returning the lost lands.

In such an ambiguous perspective, expanding the scope of tension, maintaining the status quo and even negotiation can be possible options.