“Putin is unlikely to stick to the peace agreement for long, so Britain should consider whether it can afford long-term commitments, Shapps believes.”, — write: www.unian.ua
Putin is unlikely to stick to the peace agreement for long, so Britain should consider whether it can afford long-term commitments, Shapps believes.
Shapps told under what conditions Britain can send peacekeepers to Ukraine/ UNIAN collage, photo ua.depositphotos.com, screenshotIn the light of the emergence of a peace plan and the possibility of concluding an agreement to end the war in Ukraine, Great Britain will have to make a decision about its readiness to send peacekeepers to Ukraine to ensure lasting peace. However, this depends on three important conditions, writes former defense minister Grant Shapps in a column for The Times.
1. What will be the final agreementAs Shapps notes, the issue of sending British troops to Ukraine “depends on whether there is real peace that needs to be maintained.”
He expressed his fear that Putin would view any agreement not as a settlement, but as an intermediate stop, an opportunity to rearm, regroup and prepare his next strike – as happened after the occupation of Crimea.
“Therefore, no, we cannot commit to the deployment of British troops without seeing the final agreement. If it is going to lean in favor of Moscow, we should think very carefully before sending even one British soldier into the midst of a ‘peace’ that Putin has no intention of keeping,” Shapps emphasizes.
2. Number of troopsAccording to Shapps, a large-scale and prolonged deployment would seriously strain British forces, while a focused coalition-led mission is entirely achievable.
“So yes, with the support of allies and in conditions of real peace, Britain can deploy troops,” he assures.
3. Deployment periodThe main question is what form any commitment will take — a time-limited deployment or a permanent presence at the new demarcation line, Shapps said. At the same time, he indicates that the current version of the peace plan is more indicative of the latter option:
“The long-term deployment of a high-readiness force cannot be accomplished on goodwill and optimism alone. It requires people, equipment and predictable funding, not just press releases.”
He points out that the main problem here is funding, since there is “not a line, not a hint, not even a hint of a down payment” about defense spending of 5% of GDP, as promised to Donald Trump.
“If the money really started coming in, we could begin to restore the long-term stability – troops, equipment, ammunition, logistics – needed by Great Britain to lead any European peacekeeping forces in Ukraine,” he points out.
At the same time, he emphasizes: if the peace plan is finally implemented, but it turns out to be “no more than a masterful attempt to pass off capitulation … for a display of state wisdom”, then this will make the peacekeeping mission doomed to failure.
Peacekeepers in UkraineAs previously reported, Europe has developed a plan to deploy peacekeepers in Ukraine. According to it, it is planned to deploy two groups of ground forces at once. One is for training and support of the Ukrainian army, and the second, a separate “guarantee” force, designed to deter a possible future invasion of the Russian Federation.
At the same time, the initial version of the US “peace plan” stipulated that Ukraine should refuse to deploy peacekeeping forces on its territory.
You may also be interested in news:
- The USA is in a hurry to “sell” Ukraine: Trump’s ex-advisor named his motive
- The US and Ukraine will hold new talks to end the war: Reuters revealed the date and place
- The ex-adviser of the White House told how Putin teased Trump, and he didn’t even notice