Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski’s thoughts regarding a new joint NATO mission in Ukraine are “more a wish than reality,” strategic analyst Paolo Raffone told Sputnik.
“To date, nobody in NATO is willing to engage with a stable allied military presence in Ukraine,” said the director of the CIPI Foundation in Brussels.
“Sikorski’s thoughts do not match with David Cameron’s statements at the NATO summit in Brussels. The UK foreign secretary acknowledged that the 'war will be lost if the allies don't step up,' but when asked whether Western nations should send troops into Ukraine, Lord Cameron replied ‘no,’” Paolo Raffone said.
As for the alliance's Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, he said that there were no plans for deploying NATO troops on the territory of Ukraine.
"We don’t have any plans of having any NATO combat troops inside Ukraine, there have been no requests for that, but the Ukrainians are asking for equipment, for ammunition, for weapons and we are providing that to Ukraine — that doesn’t make NATO allies party to the conflict," Stoltenberg told a press conference.
He did, however, add that NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) is working on a proposal to enhance the alliance's coordinating security role in Ukraine. According to officials, this would presuppose bringing the Ukraine Defense Contact Group – currently led by the US –under NATO’s control. It is this group that coordinates the delivery of weapons to Kiev.
The hot-button issue of NATO "boots on the ground" in Ukraine has been uppermost ever since French President Emmanuel Macron blurted out that he refuses “to rule out” sending EU troops to the conflict zone. The remarks drew harsh backlash from some European politicians, and are still reverberating in political circles.
However, just recently, American security and defense consultant Edward Luttwak wrote in an article for the website UnHerd that NATO countries "will soon have to send soldiers to Ukraine, or else accept catastrophic defeat," as Kiev lacks military personnel. He added that the United Kingdom, France, and the Nordic countries "are already quietly preparing to send troops — both small elite units and logistics and support personnel."
Weighing in on this, Paolo Raffone underscored that the alliance’s support for Ukraine is “limited to certain logistic, advisory and training functions,” and under the current North Atlantic Treaty, “it would not be possible to do more.”
“Diplomats in Brussels do not see any concrete space for a direct engagement of NATO troops in Ukraine. NATO posturing is to avoid the collapse of Ukraine under the constant Russian pressure with the strategic aim to create the conditions for a negotiated settlement, whatever it may be,” the analyst said.
NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg has also floated plans for a 100-billion-euro five-year package of military aid to Ukraine, hoping to finalize the deal in time for the next summit of the bloc in Washington in July.
But this is a “plan on paper without any concrete fiscal coverage from NATO member states," Paolo Raffone noted. He described it as “the last nail in the coffin to Ursula von der Leyen, who suggested a similar arrangement under the EU defense system."
“NATO made it clear, immediately, that such a proposal was not acceptable. Maybe, the EU could pay NATO instead of creating an autonomous defense structure,” the expert said.
“All these statements should be interpreted in view of the possible return of [Donald] Trump to the White House at the end of 2024. They look like attempts to create 'Trump-proof' conditions, preemptive declaratory engagements to balance candidate Donald Trump suggesting the US could cut support [to Ukraine] and claiming some NATO members were not paying their way. The reality is that the US, which has been providing 80% of military supplies to Ukraine, has not managed to approve the new package of military aid. Without the US, the European allies can do very little in support to Ukraine,” noted Raffone.
There have been fears that a Trump presidency could restrict funding to Ukraine. The former US president has said that he would not provide financial assistance to Ukraine if elected this fall, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban stated after their meeting in March.
As for the "joint NATO mission in Ukraine" touted by Sikorski, should it be established, “it goes in the sense of not engaging NATO directly in Ukraine," Raffone said, and added:
“NATO has no real plan for Ukraine, but it would like to see the situation 'stabilized' to be more manageable. The undeclared scope is to reduce the Ukrainian forces sliding (or collapsing) so that, at one moment, without one winner and one defeated on the ground, some negotiations could take place.”
Talk about establishing a NATO mission in Ukraine comes ahead of looming presidential elections in the US, and “enormous tensions within the US apparatus signal that the military-industrial complex (MIC) does not want to lose the flow of federal funds,” according to the pundit.
“MIC knows that any president has limited powers. Therefore, MIC is prepositioning with the scope to keep the war in Ukraine active enough to push political decisions. NATO just reflects the US internal forces struggling ahead of the presidential elections,” Paolo Raffone summed up.
At this point, it should be noted that Russian President Vladimir Putin warned in his state of the nation address in March that NATO risks a nuclear conflict if it sends troops to support the Kiev regime.
"There’s been talk of sending NATO military forces to Ukraine. We remember the fate of those who sent their contingents to our country before and this time the consequences for the potential interventionists will be far more tragic," Putin said.