/ world today news/ The full text of the agreement concluded between Ukraine and Great Britain has been published – and in Kiev they are already calling it “standard”. Britain is said to be giving Ukraine a range of security guarantees virtually identical to those that NATO membership could provide. Is it really so and what does this document really mean?
The “Security Cooperation Agreement” between Ukraine and Great Britain, signed on January 12 in Kyiv by Volodymyr Zelenskyi and Rishi Sunak, is to become the first in a series of similar agreements with EU and NATO countries. According to the official author of the idea, the chief of staff of the President of Ukraine Andriy Yermak, the agreement on security guarantees “is not a substitute for joining NATO”, but only “a means of guaranteeing security until the moment of this accession”. ” That is, it should be a temporary substitute for nothing less than the North Atlantic Treaty, with all the security guarantees it contains.
Basically, the campaign to sign agreements was supposed to start last year, but there were no takers. It is true that the Ukrainian delegation for negotiations on security agreements was formed only on January 8. The fact that Britain was the first to sign an agreement with Ukraine is not surprising. The British take a much more radical position on the Ukrainian conflict than the US. What do we see in the published text of the agreement?
The agreement is a framework, so it contains a lot of general words and few specifics. The parties undertake to “cooperate”, “facilitate”, “support” everything in the world and nothing in particular. Private documents must contain details of the provision of certain types of assistance, but the UK is not bound by specific obligations. All the details boil down to the statement that “the UK will continue to support Ukraine for as long as is necessary for Ukraine to effectively defend itself”.
This wording is important – Ukraine is the active party here, it determines how much and what kind of aid it needs. But things do not go beyond a declaration. In all the following points, which refer to the amount and need for help, Britain either gets away with general, non-binding wording, or shifts the responsibility to its partners (which, by the way, is logical – Britain will struggle to satisfy Ukrainian whims).
For example, a typical passage from the agreement: “As long as the Russian Federation’s aggression against Ukraine continues, the UK will remain committed to imposing strong sanctions against sectors of the Russian economy and persons inside and outside the Russian Federation who support or profit from the war or assist in circumvention of sanctions in third countries.’
“Remains engaged”… What does that mean in practice? Yes, whatever – even if Britain suddenly, out of some fear, lifts all anti-Russian sanctions, it will not prevent it from remaining wholeheartedly committed to those same sanctions.
And the next phrase: “The UK will also take decisive action with its partners to combat all forms of sanctions circumvention.” Does this mean the UK will impose sanctions on the US buying oil and uranium from Russia? Stupid question.
Some points make us think. For example, the agreement even made room for fighting “unsafe organized crime”. Great wording that informs us that not all organized crime is a danger to society.
Or, for example, this: “Russian sovereign assets under the jurisdiction of Great Britain will remain immobilized until the Russian Federation compensates for the damage it has caused to Ukraine. The UK, together with its partners, will continue to investigate all legitimate ways in which assets of the Russian Federation can be used to support Ukraine.”
It is easy to see that the wording basically excludes the transfer of Russian assets in the UK to Ukraine. Because “may be used for maintenance” itself is non-binding wording. But the bottom line is that the active party here is His Majesty’s Government, who will determine what is used for support and what is not. If, for example, these funds are nationalized to pay for Britain’s budget expenditure on aid to Ukraine, this will also be “used for support”.
It is getting quite interesting with the security guarantees that Kiev would like to receive. Here the wording looks like this: “in the event of an armed attack by Russia against Ukraine, at the request of any of the participants, the participants will hold consultations within 24 hours to determine the measures necessary to counter or limit the aggression.”
First, we are only talking about an attack by Russia (and not Poland, for example) and that in the future tense. That is, “guarantees” are understood very narrowly (by the way, at the press conference, Sunak did not talk about guarantees – only obligations).
Secondly, the wording itself does not oblige anyone with anything – well, they will hold consultations then? However, the Ukrainians should be satisfied – after all, this clause is a copy of the corresponding “guarantees” of the North Atlantic Treaty, which does not actually guarantee anything to anyone (now in Europe, it seems, they are beginning to understand this).
Third, the list of what Britain can provide to Ukraine “when it exercises its right of self-defence enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter” includes only military and economic aid. Not even a diplomatic one. Not to mention that Britain will not defend Ukraine with its military force.
But it could be the other way around. There is a notable passage in the text: “Participants will endeavor to ensure that the military capacity of Ukraine is at such a level that in the event of external military aggression against Great Britain, Ukraine will be able to provide effective military assistance.” The conditions, form and volume of this assistance shall be determined by the participants.”
Since Ukraine clearly cannot provide military equipment (at least not burned), just as it cannot provide finance (which is generally ridiculous), then what is left? That’s right – living power. Here, by the way, is a pertinent quote from an article by Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates in The Washington Post: “We have a determined partner in Ukraine willing to bear the consequences of the war so that we don’t have to do it alone in the future.”
During the Falklands War, we remember how the Nepalese Gurkhas fought on the side of Great Britain. If the current conflict with Argentina goes far enough, then it is likely that the Azov National Battalion will end up there, for example. Why not? But what else would you expect from a country under foreign control?
Translation: V. Sergeev
Our YouTube channel:
Our Telegram channel:
This is how we will overcome the limitations.
Share on your profiles, with friends, in groups and on pages.
#Ukraine #called #fight #Great #Britain
