The United Kingdom, France, and Estonia have been among the countries that have volunteered for the deployment of military personnel in Ukraine to deter Russian aggression.
Even as there is no sign of a pending peace deal to end the fighting in Ukraine, it is increasingly evident that a lasting peace may be even more elusive. The most significant sticking point in any negotiation will be the future security of Ukraine. Russia, which launched its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, has maintained that Kyiv will not be allowed to join NATO or another military alliance with the West. It has also made clear that even the deployment of NATO forces inside Ukraine would be a non-starter.
“These are not security guarantees for Ukraine, but a guarantee of insecurity on the European continent,” said Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova in Vladivostok, during the Eastern Economic Forum (EEF) on Thursday.
The Kremlin has continued to reject any deployment of NATO personnel to Ukraine, including to monitor a ceasefire and to serve as peacekeepers. “Russia will not discuss deeply unacceptable foreign intervention in Ukraine that undermines security,” Zakharova added.
NATO Might Deploy to Ukraine Anyway
Speaking at NATO headquarters in Brussels on Tuesday, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte made clear that Moscow should not get a say on what troops are eventually deployed in Ukraine, and rather that should be up to Kyiv.
“Why are we interested in what Russia thinks about troops in Ukraine? It’s a sovereign country. It’s not for them to decide,” Rutte said. “Russia has nothing to do with this.”
The NATO chief stated that it should be up to Kyiv to determine whether security guarantee forces should be deployed in Ukraine to support any peace deal: “Finland didn’t ask Russia for approval to join NATO. We are sovereign nations, and if Ukraine wants security forces to support peace, it’s up to them.”
A “Coalition of the Willing,” a group of around 30 nations that have supported Ukraine—largely, but not exclusively, overlapping with NATO membership—has called for greater security guarantees to ensure that any peace will be a lasting one, rather than simply giving Russia time to regroup and launch a follow-up invasion in the future. The United Kingdom, France, and Estonia have been among the countries that have volunteered for the deployment of military personnel in Ukraine to deter Russian aggression.
Other nations, including Poland, have indicated that they would not participate, even as they have sought to bolster NATO defenses along the border with Russia.
Under President Donald Trump, the United States has reacted to the European proposal with ambivalence. Trump said he was not opposed to it, but made it clear that American troops would not join in the mission. Last month’s meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska didn’t deliver the ceasefire that Trump had hoped for, and there are signs that the administration may take another approach to Russia.
“Trump knows that Ukraine needs real security guarantees, and he’s doing this: not repeating Budapest, not repeating Minsk,” Rutte added—referencing the 1994 Budapest Memorandum in which Russia agreed to respect Ukraine’s borders in exchange for Ukraine returning Soviet-era nuclear weapons to Moscow, and the Minsk Accords of 2014 that forbade the Russian annexation of pro-Russian separatist regions in Donetsk and Luhansk.
Russia violated both deals, and NATO members are not likely to agree to Russian promises for a third time without stricter guarantees.
“This trend is not going to shift or reverse anytime soon,” Rutte continued. “Russia is, and for the foreseeable future will remain, a destabilizing and confrontational force in Europe and the world.”
How Dangerous Is Russia to NATO?
The NATO head also suggested that the international military alliance shouldn’t overestimate the Kremlin’s capabilities, or those of Russia. Although it has been Western-supplied aid that has kept Ukraine in the fight, Russia is still vastly larger than Ukraine, with a more powerful military.
However, in the more than three-and-a-half years of fighting, the mighty Russian bear has shown itself incapable of devouring a far smaller nation. It has lost hundreds of thousands of soldiers during the war, astronomically higher losses than those of the Soviet Army during its decade-long war in Afghanistan. Dozens of generals and other high-ranking officers have been killed, while Kyiv has carried out operations deep into Russia, including June’s “Operation Spiderweb” drone strikes that destroyed numerous aircraft on the ground.
Russia’s problems may run far deeper than its battlefield losses. Its economy has been kept afloat through heavy military spending, but remains constricted by international sanctions—and is now smaller than that of the US state of Texas.
“We have to stop making Putin powerful — he’s the governor of Texas, nothing more,” said Rutte. “Let’s not take him too seriously.”
About the Author: Peter Suciu
Peter Suciu has contributed over 3,200 published pieces to more than four dozen magazines and websites over a 30-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a contributing writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. He is based in Michigan. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: [email protected].
Image: Shutterstock / Gints Ivuskans.
