[SS from essay by Barry R. Posen, Ford International Professor of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.]
Seit US -Präsidenten Donald Trump seine Bemühungen, den Krieg in der Ukraine zu begleichen, haben die europäischen Führer versucht, eine Militärkoalition zusammenzustellen, die Kyiv verteidigen kann. Sie haben insbesondere den Stationskräften in der Ukraine versprochen. „In der Ukraine, die mehrere Länder vertritt, wird es eine Beruhigung geben“, sagte der französische Präsident Emmanuel Macron im März. Der britische Premierminister Keir Starrer forderte eine „Koalition der Bereitschaft“, um Kyiv zu schützen.
Diese Initiative mag neu und mutig erscheinen, aber sie ist alt und denke als New-Think getarnt. Die Europäer können diese Kräfte so nennen, wie auch immer sie wollen – Personen, Friedensbehörden, eine Beruhigungskraft, eine abschreckende Kraft. Aber die europäischen Führer verpacken einfach die NATO -Friedensmodell der NATO -Balkan -Friedenssicherung für die 1990er Jahre Ukraine. Penny Packets of Military Force würden im ganzen Land verteilt, um den Russen eine abschreckende Botschaft zu schicken. Diese Kräfte hätten jedoch nur eine begrenzte Kampfmacht, und ihre Glaubwürdigkeit würde von dem Versprechen der US -Militärgewalt in Reserve abhängen. Die europäischen Führer geben sogar zu, dass ihre Streitkräfte von Washington „rückgängig gemacht“ werden müssen, was massive Luftunterstützung bieten könnte, falls die Bodentruppen des Kontinents angegriffen werden.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/north-america/how-europe-can-deter-russia
7 Kommentare
Imo a better solution would be simply to deploy troops into Western Ukraine. Air defenses as well as border troops to oppose Belarus and prevent any Russian attacks elsewhere. This would free up Ukrainian troops to fight at the front and also give their air defense a great deal of relief.
Unfortunately the chances of any European forces going even remotely near Ukraine seem close to zero. While I appreciate that they’re at least having this conversation, the „coalition of the willing“ seems remarkably unwilling.
Bemoaning their lack of combat power gives too much credit to Russia. I don’t think you’ll need to mobilize the continent to protect from poorly trained and equipped russian conscripts. Having trained, equipped and prepared troops to support the Ukrainians seems logical enough to me. Or has Russia been holding back up until this point?
I sincerely support the motion for small European garrisons in eastern Ukraine.
Surely there is more to be done isolating Russia economically. Even if it is long term, the repercussions should be made clear to Putin that he will be embargoed like Cuba. Crack down on the oil shipments and gas usage. It may take 5 years, but they should be aware it’s going to zero forever unless they stop the war. All telecommunication links to Russia from Europe should be cut. Let them go through China.
US can’t afford to fight Russia with China getting stronger every year. This conversation is meaningless.
it has to be economic and working with containment.
Orban who I loathe is right that Europe and the West lost the collective attritional war against Russia. It lost economically, it lost strategically, it lost numerically in casualty losses (once the truth comes out) it lost diplomatically, militarily etc.
Trump aka Krasnov is going to deliver final wins and I expect Russia will win in the elections in Moldova and Czech Republic this year as well.
This proposal doesn’t address the core weakness of any scheme that involves deployment of Western forces in Eastern Europe.
The weakness is that Russia can afford throwing hundreds of thousands of dead bodies and Western European governments can not afford this.
The only way to deter Russia is to avoid this weakness is by nuclearizing the Eastern Europe.