FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
Which countries, besides the UK and France, would be willing to send forces to such an uncertain scenario given doubts about US support?
Whatever the words used to frame the plans emerging from Sunday's summit of 19 mainly European leaders in London - ceasefire or peace plan, the challenges ahead are huge.
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, along with French President Emmanuel Macron, hope this will be the plan to finally bring lasting peace to Ukraine.
At its heart lies what Sir Keir is calling the "coalition of the willing", those who would help to guarantee peace in the event of a deal being reached.
But what are the obstacles and how easily can they be overcome?
Can Europe put together a sufficient deterrent force?
First, can Europe's depleted militaries and half-empty arsenals muster anything approaching a significant deterrent force to deploy in Ukraine? What countries, other than the UK and France, would be willing to send forces to such an uncertain scenario given doubts about US support?
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has said that an international force of up to 200,000 troops would be needed to support a ceasefire along the 600-mile (960 km) line of contact between the two opposing armies, Russia and Ukraine.
Although this figure is extremely optimistic, the Ukrainian leader is accurate in estimating how many would be needed to act as a sufficient deterrent to any future Russian incursion.
In reality, Europe will struggle to reach even a third of this number, such is the effect of decades of attrition of its armies, years after the post-Cold War peace dividend should have ended.
Air power would be crucial. This is both for what is known as ISR [Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance] and for repelling any future Russian incursions.
There is no point in a brigade of UK troops sitting on a part of the ceasefire line if thousands of Russian troops and armoured vehicles are pouring across a gap 100 miles away and there are no adequate means to repel them.
The US has a great capability in Signals Intelligence, as well as air-to-air refueling, without which a purely European force would struggle. A recent report by the London-based International Institute for International Studies (IISS) stated:
"Europe's reliance on Washington's military capabilities, especially critical capabilities like ISR and air-to-air refueling, will make pursuing 'independence' a major challenge without major investments in those areas. The United States also contributes over half of all NATO fighter and ground attack aircraft."
In short, creating a credible deterrent force to defend Ukraine would be extremely challenging, if not impossible, without U.S. military support.
Can Trump be persuaded to provide a US backstop?
Donald Trump likes to say that he doesn't start wars, he stops them.
The last thing he wants to do now is commit American combat troops and air power to an unstable ceasefire line, which has the potential to erupt into a gunfight that draws in NATO forces.
Instead, he has telegraphed his preferred way to end this war, which is to make a deal directly with Russian President Vladimir Putin, face-to-face.
Sir Keir's aim is for Europe to come up with a credible ceasefire proposal, which can then be presented to President Trump in the hope, and I would emphasize the word "hope," that he will then agree to provide US military protection.
So far, this seems impossible.
Will Russia accept it?
Its ground forces are winning on the battlefield, albeit at a terrible cost in human life, and Ukraine has lost its greatest ally in this war: the United States.
Without American military support, Ukraine will struggle to hold back Russian troops advancing to the east and southeast. Without American Patriot missiles, its cities will be even more vulnerable to massive missile attacks from Russia.
President Putin has always made it clear that he will not accept the presence of NATO troops in Ukraine. Now that he effectively has an ally in the White House, he is even less likely to back down on this point unless President Trump can offer him a big boost in return.
The bottom line is that the Kremlin has not given up on its maximalist goals for Ukraine, which is to eventually bring the entire country back into Moscow's orbit, replacing Zelensky with a tolerant, pro-Russian puppet.
At a minimum, it is unlikely to budge from its core demand that Ukraine permanently cede not only those territories that Russia already occupies – in the Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk and Luhansk regions – but also to give up the adjacent cities of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, forcing hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian residents to either flee or become Russian. /Adapted from “Pamphlet”, from “BBC”
Lini një Përgjigje