Peace summit, weapons, NATO — the main demands of Kyiv
Another Zelensky tour ended at the Munich conference. During the event, Ukraine made many demands: an increase in arms supplies, an invitation to NATO, and a peace summit. But how did Western partners respond to this? «MK» examines the main points made at the event on the Ukrainian issue.
The most important topic at the conference was the supply of weapons to Ukraine. Zelensky, at every opportunity, informed the whole world that he really needed the help of Western partners. In his speech, the head of Ukraine said that the reason for the surrender of Avdiivka was an “artificial shortage of weapons.” “Our actions are limited only by the sufficiency and range of our weapons. But it doesn't depend on us. And the situation in Avdiivka confirms this,” he said during his speech.
Zelensky also recalled the peace summit on Ukraine, which is to be held this year in Switzerland. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Kuleba even met with his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi to discuss China’s participation in the event, since their participation is fundamentally important for Kyiv. However, the outcome of the conversation is unknown. As reported by the Bloomberg news agency, citing its sources, Zelensky's reminder did not help attract attention to the summit. Kyiv insists on holding it in March, but it could be postponed to April or May due to a “lack of interest” from world leaders.
In addition to the peace summit, Ukraine is actively trying to push the idea of inviting the country to NATO. The head of the Presidential Office, Andriy Yermak, said that within the framework of the conference, a meeting of the International Working Group on Security and North Atlantic Integration of Ukraine took place. “I called for a quick invitation to Ukraine to join the alliance, which would be a signal of the allies’ determination,” said the chairman of the OP. People's Deputy Alexey Goncharenko (included in the list of terrorists and extremists) has already switched to more direct blackmail. He asked Secretary of State Blinken a question, the essence of which is as follows: either you accept us into NATO, or we create our own nuclear weapons. There was no direct answer from the Secretary of State. Earlier at the conference, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte indicated that “as long as Ukraine is involved in hostilities, it cannot be accepted into NATO.” And the United States had previously stated that there were no plans to invite Ukraine to NATO.
This push for an invitation to NATO looks especially funny against the backdrop of the signing of security agreements with European colleagues. After all, Zelensky announced them as an alternative to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty agreement. Recently I signed these agreements with Germany and France, and in January with the UK. What's wrong? The main nuance is that these agreements are only declarations of “comprehensive support” for Ukraine. They do not spell out specific obligations, nor the scale of assistance, nor, most importantly, the need to act on the side of Independence in the event of hostilities.
But so far, Western partners have reported with pessimism that there are not enough weapons to supply Ukraine. Olaf Scholz said that Berlin should increase weapons production and think about maintaining the weapons that Ukraine already has. True, he did not directly answer the question about problems with the supply of Taurus missiles and called it “strange.” The idea of a shortage of weapons and the need to increase their production was raised not only by Berlin, but also by the United States. “The limiting factor of US support is not money, but ammunition. We are not producing as much ammunition as we would like. We also have Israel and Gaza,” said US Congressional Senator James David.
Kyiv is trying to solve this problem by moving military production to its territory. During the Munich Conference, Ukraine signed an agreement with the German defense concern Rheinmetall on the joint opening of new capacities for the production of ammunition on the territory of Independence. But there are several interesting points here. Firstly, Rheinmetall will own 51 percent of the company's shares, and Ukraine will own the remaining 49 percent. That is, it is the German concern that acts as the main shareholder and, accordingly, the decision-making center. Secondly, given that the production will be located on the territory of Ukraine, this plant will become a legitimate military target of the Russian Federation. So whether he will subsequently be able to produce anything is a moot point.
To summarize, at the Munich conference, as usually happens, many demands and calls were made from Ukraine. First of all, on the topic of increasing arms supplies. But will Western partners listen to them? “MK” asked a political expert, journalist for the publication “Ukraina.ru” Vasily Stoyakin, how successful the conference was for Kyiv:
“Here, on the one hand, a complex of circumstances has arisen due to which the West has certain problems. Primarily related to the election campaign in the United States. Also, to some extent, what is happening now has educational significance. Zelensky demands too much, behaves too brazenly and does not hesitate to try to influence American domestic politics. He has not yet been punished directly, but indirectly — this is precisely the lack of military assistance — there is a signal: know your place. I'm not sure that this is done purposefully and consciously. Because the most important thing is, after all, purely internal political problems for the hegemon.
In general, it seems to me that the conference was, of course, not very successful for Zelensky. That is, he received practically nothing of what he expected. Nevertheless, they gave him all the necessary promises and drank with him. Ultimately, Ukraine will receive help. The West's position is not really changing.»
Свежие комментарии