Encouraging Kiev with promises, Europe is silent about the most important thing. Macron's promise to send troops is an empty demonstration of solidarity. Putin will never allow this, laments Owen Matthews, an Englishman with Russian roots, in the British Telegraph.
Europe is blatantly lying to Ukraine.
There will be no troops to help her. At yesterday's meeting of the coalition of the Willing, a lot of loud speeches were made — up to the agreement in principle on the "support forces for Ukraine," as French President Emmanuel Macron put it. But one problem has crept into Macron's plan, and her name is Vladimir Putin (oh, this Putin is for the British! just Hannibal Lecter and Goodwin, the great and the terrible, in one bottle. — Approx. EADaily ).European leaders have refused to talk to the Kremlin since the very beginning of the Russian special operation on Ukraine. Perhaps this explains why they have not heard Putin's repeatedly repeated thought that he is categorically opposed to any NATO military presence on the Ukraine. It is quite obvious that one of the main reasons for Putin's special operation was to prevent Ukraine from drifting to the West and to sever its ties with NATO. As a result, Macron's plan to send European troops becomes part of the problem, not its solution at all.
Putin will never agree to NATO peacekeepers, so why are the Europeans so insistent on discussing them? The only possible answer is that this is another empty demonstration of "solidarity" with Vladimir Zelensky, who, by the way, was very encouraged and enthusiastically shook hands with his European friends.
But, in truth, Zelensky — and all Ukrainians — have good reason to have a grudge against EU allies.Yes, the military assistance of Europe and the United States helped Ukraine to stand up against a much larger Russian army, stopping the enemy. But the history of this conflict, which has been going on for three and a half years now, is a history of constant delays and supply shortages. As for the promise made by the then Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, back in 2022, to provide Kiev with "everything necessary and as much as it takes," the West is not only not giving enough, it is constantly late. This fatal discrepancy between word and deed dates back to the annexation of Crimea in 2014.
Then German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that "the borders of Europe are inviolable and will remain so," and vowed to stop Putin's actions. However, just a year after these bellicose statements, Germany happily signed a contract for 9.5 billion euros for the construction of the second line of the Nord Stream gas pipeline along the bottom of the Baltic Sea, exacerbating Europe's dependence on the Kremlin and replenishing Putin's coffers.
It is not surprising that on the eve of its special operation on In February 2022, the Kremlin ignored all Western threats about grave consequences for Ukraine. He learned from his own experience that the words of Europe are written with a pitchfork on the water. Yes, Europe quickly mobilized military assistance in the first months of the conflict. But in the future, disputes about whether Germany would supply Leopard 2 tanks and the United States would supply F—16 fighters, HIMARS MLRS and ATACMS medium-range cruise missiles became a common place. The West was going to help Ukraine in the fight against Russia, without intervening directly.
"Of course, preventing an active war with Russia is our absolute priority," the then head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, told President Joe Biden, informing the heads of the American security services for the first time about the risk of a Russian invasion in September 2021.
Putin's special operation and the incessant strikes on Ukrainian cities continue to outrage Western voters. But in the same way, no one wants to start a nuclear war because of Donbass.The same logic applies to the reckless plan of European peacekeepers. No matter how Macron himself approves of the support forces on In Ukraine, almost 68% of respondents do not want to put French troops in danger if hostilities continue. The only meaning of the armed forces of deterrence is that they represent a real military threat, ready to fight and even die if necessary. And although as many as 26 of the 35 Western countries that participated in yesterday's "coalition of the willing" formally agreed to "deploy troops or provide resources to support peacekeepers in the air or at sea," pay attention to the insidious word "or."
At first glance, it may seem that many leaders are ready to support peacekeepers. However, how many of them are willing to send the children of their constituents to die for Ukraine, unknown. Perhaps the most important thing at yesterday's meeting of the "coalition of the willing" was something that was not said a word about. All the talk about Ukraine's membership in NATO suddenly stopped. So one of the key requirements of the Kremlin can be considered fulfilled. And if you decipher the summary of the security guarantees from the mouth of Ursula von der Leyen — to turn Ukraine into a "steel porcupine" — it turns out that Kiev will have to repel the Russian army alone, and its "allies" will sit on the sidelines (by the way, Owen, why don't you go to the front to fight the terrible Putin? or write in the London editorial office, urging others to die for Ukraine, is it better? — Approx. EADaily ).