U.S. National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said there had been a shift in momentum after Ukrainian forces recently recaptured large swathes of the northeastern region around the city of Kharkov.
Others are more skeptical. Bundeswehr inspector general Eberhard Zorn, as he told German news magazine Focus on Saturday, “can be used to retake individual sections of towns and fronts, but to push back Russia on a broad front.” The “counterattacks that can be used” are seen at most.
Perhaps it is also from this sense of relative strength that the Ukrainian leadership presented the concept of post-war security. The announcement was made jointly in Kyiv by the head of the Ukrainian presidential office Andriy Yermak and former NATO secretary-general Anders Voor Rasmussen.
Long-term goal: NATO membership
The fact that Rasmussen tackled it already shows where the Ukrainian journey should go. But first, the Ukrainian military needs to be equipped and trained for the future so that it can repel further Russian attacks. The newspaper said a group of countries should guarantee Ukraine’s security. Possible guarantor countries are listed as USA, UK, Germany, Canada, Poland, Italy, France, Australia, Turkey, and Nordic and Baltic countries.
Roderich Kiesewetter, security policy spokesman for Germany’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU), described the concept as “sensible and realistic as soon as Ukraine restores its territorial integrity.” Kiesewetter told DW that NATO membership should also “remain a goal for Ukraine.” In his opinion, among the guarantor states “the nuclear-weapon states should also have a nuclear umbrella over Ukraine, otherwise there will be danger that Russia will continue to act with nuclear threats and extortion”.
For Johannes Varwick, a political scientist at the University of Halle, this notion is indeed a “wise reflection on the ‘later age'”.
“But the security difficulty lies in the fact that, on the one hand, it must be reliable in order to be useful to Ukraine, and on the other hand, it must be below the binding force of mutual assistance clauses. Russia. We need to agree to Article 5 of the NATO Treaty in order to be accepted by the United States,” Varwick told DW.
Vague commitment and bad experience
Ukraine, over the course of the war, has become less modest about its future security. Kyiv hinted at the start of the war that it could remain neutral forever, but NATO membership is now seen as essential. At the end of August, Ukraine’s Deputy Prime Minister for European Integration Olha Stefanishyna said Ukraine’s only option was direct accession.
The claim was probably also in response to the G7 meeting in Germany at the end of June. In its final declaration at the time, the G7 countries expressed their willingness to “agree to long-term security commitments to assist Ukraine in its self-defense.” When DW asked Prime Minister Olaf Scholz if he could be more specific about these security pledges, he replied in a widely shared video, “Yes.” Then, after a brief pause with a grin, he added, “That’s it.”
With the so-called Budapest Memorandum of 1994, Ukraine already had to learn painfully how worthless international security pledges, even formulated in concrete terms, are. Republics of Kazakhstan, Belarus and Ukraine have received security guarantees from the US, UK and Russia. They were guaranteed sovereignty and the inviolability of their borders. The US and UK guarantors are at the forefront of international arms support to Ukraine today, but have never intervened directly militarily.
Today, more than ever, Ukraine is pushing to join the Western Defense Alliance. However, his political scientist Varwick, in contrast to CDU politician Kiesewetter, thinks this is false. Today, this debate creates more problems than it solves. ”
Medvedev: Guarantees will be ‘prelude to World War III’
Conflicting statements have been made in recent days about whether Russia is ready for new negotiations after the recent Ukrainian attack. I did, Stephanicina told France 24 broadcaster. But there is no confirmation from Moscow.
Instead, Moscow reacted sharply to the concept of international security guarantees. These will be “the prelude to World War III,” said former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. He said they would be closer to their mutual aid obligations under Article 5 of the NATO Treaty. ” Medvedev threatened.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov once again justified the war because Ukraine wants to join NATO. Therefore, “the greatest danger to our country also remains, and therefore the reasons for the need for a special military operation are still relevant and, in fact, even more relevant,” Peskov told the Interfax news agency. rice field.
a little hope for peace
Speaking on the phone for the first time after a three-and-a-half-month hiatus with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Scholz said Russia was unwilling to negotiate: “Unfortunately, I can’t. Who started this war?” Please pass on the growing awareness that it was a mistake,” Scholz said Wednesday. “It would be too simplistic to think that we are close to the possibility of a peace agreement,” he said.
Thus, ideas about the post-war order are likely to remain purely theoretical for now. I think it only makes sense if it’s part. Even with the recent Ukrainian offensive, he still “has not seen a real turning point in the war. Russia continues to have the means and the will to escalate and has not yet exhausted its potential for escalation.”
While I’m Here: Every Tuesday, DW’s editors round up what’s happening in German politics and society. You can sign up for our weekly email newsletter “Berlin Briefing” here.
