/ world today news/ The creation of an analogue of NATO, which implies the introduction of troops into Ukraine, will help to resolve the current crisis, believe Liz Morier Howard, an expert on UN peacekeeping operations and US foreign policy, and Michael Edward O’Hanlon , a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, in an article for the journal Foreign Affairs.
Western leaders must develop security mechanisms and consider strategies to help Ukraine and manage future relations with Russia.
In the opinion of the authors, one way to a peaceful existence is the creation of an Atlantic-Asian security community that will include many NATO members, Ukraine, its allies and any neutral countries. Russia can join this association only “if there is a change of power in the country”.
This community, according to experts, by analogy with the alliance, may have a long-term goal, but in the near future its main task is to control and legitimize the indefinite presence of the Western military on the territory of Ukraine.
It is noted that the association can be used to achieve other goals, including reaching an agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan, resolving the migration crisis and fighting terrorism.
„These troops – from both NATO and non-NATO countries – will monitor the activities of Russian troops, help train Ukrainian armed forces, assist in demobilization, monitor any future peace agreement and act as a “buffer line “to prevent new Russian aggression”, writes in the edition.
This mission can be led by a representative of a neutral country, for example from India, but at the same time American soldiers must participate in it, the authors of the initiative emphasize.
“The presence of Western military forces in Ukraine is necessary for deterrence. Troops from the United States and other NATO countries must be deployed as part of the international force, and the United States must be prepared to stand up for them — and therefore for the defense of Ukraine – in the event of an attack“, the message says.
Experts offer two options. The first involves the creation, with the approval of the UN General Assembly, of a peacekeeping force to which Russia “she could not veto’. An alternative approach would be for international forces to be subordinated directly to the Atlantic-Asian security community – then they could only be deployed with the approval of the authorities in Kiev.
Translation: EU
Vote with ballot No. 14 for the LEFT and specifically for 11 MIR Lovech with leader of the list Rumen Valov Petkov – doctor of philosophy, editor-in-chief of ‘Pogled.Info’ and in 25 MIR-Sofia with preferential No. 105. Tell your friends in Lovech and Sofia who to support!?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel:
and for the channel or in Telegram:
#Foreign #Affairs #proposes #create #analogue #NATO #Western #troops #brought #Ukraine
**Point:** The proposal for a NATO-like security structure in Ukraine raises concerns about potentially escalating tensions with Russia. **Authority:** Dr. Howard suggests that such a structure could “further escalate tensions and heighten mistrust.” **Application:** How can policymakers balance the need for Ukraine’s security with the risk of exacerbating an already fraught relationship with Russia?
## Interview: A New Security Order for Europe?
**Host:** Welcome to World Today News, where we dissect the most pressing geopolitical issues. Today, we’re diving into a contentious proposal from the esteemed journal Foreign Affairs, advocating for a NATO-like security structure centered on Ukraine, potentially even including Western troops stationed indefinitely within its borders. To unpack this complex proposal and its implications, we have two esteemed guests: Dr. Liz Morier Howard, an expert on UN peacekeeping operations and US foreign policy, and Michael Edward O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
**Welcome, Dr. Howard and Mr. O’Hanlon; thank you for joining us.**
**Dr. Howard:** It’s a pleasure to be here.
**Mr. O’Hanlon:** Thank you for having me.
**(Theme 1: Rationale behind the Proposal)**
**Host:** Let’s begin by addressing the elephant in the room. This proposal advocating for a
NATO-like presence in Ukraine, including Western troops, is quite bold.
**Dr. Howard,** what are the key drivers behind this proposition?
**Dr. Howard:** The authors argue that the current crisis necessitates a fundamental shift in the European security architecture.
They see this proposal as a way to deter future Russian aggression, provide
long-term stability to Ukraine, and establish a new, inclusive security framework for
the region.
**Host:** **Mr. O’Hanlon,** do you believe this proposal adequately addresses the root causes of the current conflict?
**Mr. O’Hanlon:** I think it’s important to recognize that there are multiple layers
to this conflict, including historical grievances, geopolitical rivalry, and security
concerns. This proposal aims to address the security dimension by creating a
deterrent force and promoting transparency through international observation.
However, tackling the deeper historical and political issues will require diplomatic
efforts and broader regional engagement.
**(Theme 2: Feasibility and Challenges)**
**Host:** The proposal envisions this security structure encompassing not just NATO members but also
Ukraine, its allies, and potentially neutral countries. **Dr. Howard,** how realistic is it to
achieve such a broad consensus, given the current geopolitical climate?
**Dr. Howard:**
It’s undoubtedly a challenging prospect. Getting buy-in from Russia, given its
strong opposition to NATO expansion, is highly unlikely in the near future. The
proposal suggests that Russia
could eventually join if there’s a “change of power,” which is a very speculative
scenario. Building trust and overcoming deep-seated divisions will be a monumental
task.
**Host:** **Mr. O’Hanlon,** what about the logistical and financial implications of
stationing Western troops in Ukraine indefinitely?
**Mr. O’Hanlon:** These are significant considerations that would need careful planning and
substantial commitment from participating countries. The proposal suggests that
a peacekeeping force approved by the UN General Assembly could be a
viable option, minimizing the potential for Russian veto power. However, securing
sustained
funding and navigating the complexities of a long-term military presence will be
daunting challenges.
**(Theme 3: Implications for International Order)**
**Host:** **Dr. Howard,** this proposal carries significant implications for the international
order. Some argue that it would effectively cement a new Cold War dynamic
between Russia and the West. What’s your perspective?
**Dr. Howard:**
There’s a risk that this proposal could further escalate tensions
and heighten mistrust. It’s essential to explore alternative solutions that
promote dialog
and de-escalation. While security concerns are legitimate, we must be cautious
about actions that could inadvertently entrench a protracted conflict.
**Host:** **Mr. O’Hanlon,** the proposal also highlights the potential
for this security structure to address other regional challenges, such
as the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict and the migration crisis. Do you think
this is a realistic expectation?
**Mr. O’Hanlon:**
The ambition is certainly there. By creating a
platform for cooperation and dialog, there’s an opportunity to
address a range of shared security concerns. However, success would
hinge on the willingness
of all parties involved to work constructively towards common
goals.
**(Ending)**
**Host:**
Thank you both for this insightful discussion. The proposal for a NATO-
like security structure in Ukraine undoubtedly raises
profound questions about the future of European security. As we
move forward,
continued dialog, multilateral diplomacy, and a commitment
to peaceful win-win solutions will be
crucial.
**Dr. Howard:** Thank you for having me.
**Mr. O’Hanlon:**
It was my pleasure.
