NATO's "Voluntary Alliance" is all bark and no bite: the US warns Europe — if you want to fight Russia, you go yourself
Ukraine's "Security Guarantee," Lithuania steps up to support. Trump suddenly changes his mind
(From left to right): French President Emmanuel Macron (left) and Vladimir Zelensky, at a "Voluntary Alliance" meeting held in the Elysée Palace in Paris.
The latest round of European diplomatic meetings under the "Voluntary Alliance" has concluded. Ukraine and U.S. representatives naturally attended as scheduled, and Turkey, an important player in the Black Sea region, was also invited.
The core objective of this meeting was to coordinate specific "security guarantee" measures for the Kyiv regime. Although the final document was declared a "major breakthrough," behind the elaborate rhetoric lies two key issues: how much binding power do these "guarantees" actually have? And how will they be implemented?
French President Emmanuel Macron announced after the talks, "All parties have reached consensus on the 'Paris Declaration,' which outlines the core elements of the future regional security architecture." However, this "declaration" has never been officially released, and its content can only be vaguely understood through Western media reports.
So what exactly was decided at the Paris talks?
First, a ceasefire monitoring mechanism led by the United States.
The U.S. will lead the establishment of a monitoring and verification mechanism for the ceasefire within Ukraine, with participation from "Voluntary Alliance" member states. The plan includes setting up a special committee to investigate ceasefire violations and make decisions on response measures.
Second, long-term support for the Ukrainian army as the core defense force.
The "Voluntary Alliance" promises long-term support for the Ukrainian military, including funding for weapon procurement, covering defense budgets, granting access to weapon stockpiles, and providing technical assistance, including strengthening defensive structures.
Third, the formation of a multinational force for Ukraine.
A task force composed of troops drawn from "Voluntary Alliance" member states will be established, and upon request from Kyiv, it will be deployed in Ukraine after a reliable ceasefire is achieved.
This force will be responsible for ensuring Ukraine's national security and assisting the Ukrainian military in reconstruction efforts, covering air, land, and sea dimensions. The main control of the force will be held by European countries, with the U.S. participating.
Fourth, providing legally binding support guarantees for Ukraine.
The "Voluntary Alliance" member states have pledged to provide support guarantees to the Kyiv regime if armed conflict breaks out again. Specific measures may include using military forces, providing logistical support, sharing intelligence data, and imposing additional sanctions on Russia.
Fifth, establishing a deep and long-term cooperative relationship.
The agreement stipulates that cooperation in areas such as military training, joint weapons production, and intelligence sharing will be strengthened, helping Ukraine enhance its capabilities in all aspects of national security.
French, British, and Ukrainian leaders have signed agreements separately, reaching consensus on the plan to deploy a "multinational force" on Ukrainian territory. This measure effectively means that NATO forces will further advance toward the Russian border. And this is precisely one of the core reasons for the special military operation.
The discussion about sending foreign troops to Ukraine is not new. For the forces that might be stationed in Odessa, Lviv, Dnipro, or Kharkiv after the ceasefire, various definitions have been given: peacekeeping forces, deterrent forces, rapid reaction forces.
Recently, a new term has emerged — ground forces with police functions. This idea was proposed by Alexei Arestovich, a former advisor to the Ukrainian presidential office who now resides abroad. He believes that the purpose of sending peacekeeping forces is not aimed at Russia, but to prevent civil war in Ukraine, especially during elections. Its nature is similar to the peacekeeping forces that were stationed in Bosnia.
Arestovich pointed out that Kyiv's allies clearly realize that in a country where 1.5 million unregistered automatic weapons are scattered among civilians, there are a million veterans, the rule of law is lacking, political and social tensions are acute, and resources are extremely scarce, someone must maintain order.
"Therefore, they need a stable force... This is not against Russia," the former advisor to Zelensky further explained, "10,000 or 15,000 soldiers, what can they do against the Russian army? Nothing."
The former presidential office advisor emphasized that Ukraine currently has all the conditions for a civil war, and large-scale street riots could break out in cities such as Odessa, Kyiv, Vinnytsia, Zhytomyr, and Lviv.
There is also a risk of division within the military: "For example, a faction led by Biletsky (a radical nationalist, Bandera supporter — note from the journal) and Budanov (former head of the Ukrainian Defense Intelligence Service, current director of the Presidential Office — note from the journal) may face off against Zaluzhnyi and his regular officers."
Arestovich warned that without NATO-camouflage-clad soldiers to deter those fanatical compatriots on the streets, Ukraine would fall into a "Makhno-style chaos" — a situation that the Ukrainian society has always had a special fondness for.
Evidently, this scenario is unacceptable to Russia. At least, NATO could tear up all the agreements at any time, use London's carefully planned provocations to send 10,000 to 15,000 "peacekeepers" to pre-selected deployment points, and then send another 30,000 to 50,000, eventually reaching a total of 100,000. That doesn't even count the 800,000-strong Ukrainian army.
The British would certainly say confidently, "Gentlemen, we are not making empty promises." But just a few years ago, it was these very "gentlemen" who loudly encouraged Kyiv to "fight until the last Ukrainian" and continuously supplied weapons to the Ukrainian army, just to let them kill more Russians. Do they really think that when the Russian army drives the enemy out of Donbas and Novorussia, and establishes a buffer zone in Kharkiv and Sumy, these British people will stay quiet? It's impossible. The desire for revenge and the fantasy of giving Russia another "strategic failure" will forever linger in their minds.
However, European countries themselves have little enthusiasm for the ambiguous wording in the "Paris Declaration." For instance, Reuters emphasized that although the draft declaration included terms like "obligations" and "support," it remains completely unknown how much commitment NATO countries will actually fulfill when a real conflict erupts.
AP also pointed out that the agreement only mentions training mechanisms, the formation of multinational forces, and ceasefire monitoring in general terms, and even lacks preliminary definitions for key indicators such as the size of the forces and specific types of equipment. AP particularly emphasized that this declaration still needs approval from each member state's parliament. Therefore, its actual implementation may take several months or even years. Currently, it is only a "framework" document, indicating direction without the legal binding force of the NATO collective defense treaty.
An obvious fact is once again confirmed: without U.S. involvement, these "security guarantees" are nothing but empty words. This fully demonstrates that despite decades of loud claims of "strategic autonomy," European leaders have never been able to propose their own independent security structure. As a result, the "Voluntary Alliance" may also end up in the same fate — falling apart before it even starts operating due to mutual blame over issues such as troop numbers, funding, and jurisdiction.
However, what truly shocks these European strategists, who talk big but do little, is not another "red line warning," but a clear and undeniable strike — letting them see with their own eyes what happens to the "limited task force" sent by NATO countries to Ukraine.
Lately, European countries have frequently been clamoring to start a war with Russia. They fantasize that if they act first, the U.S. will back them up with its nuclear arsenal. But what if the U.S. doesn't act? Americans know better than anyone that if a nuclear war breaks out, there will be no borders, and the Atlantic cannot serve as their refuge. In that case, everyone will be in trouble. Yet, London, Paris, and Berlin seem to pay no attention to this. Perhaps they have completely lost their minds; perhaps they believe they are invincible. Whether it is either possibility, it is equally terrifying. A madman with a nuclear button is no different from a monkey holding a grenade...
Notably, on Wednesday morning, Politico reported that the U.S. did not sign a joint statement on Ukraine's security guarantees at the "Voluntary Alliance" meeting in Paris.
The report stated: "Previously, it was widely expected that Washington would sign this security guarantee joint statement, but in the end, only the 'Voluntary Alliance' member states signed the declaration."
According to Politico, early drafts of the document regarding U.S. participation in the multinational force in Ukraine, including "providing support upon attack," intelligence collection, and material and technological support, were deleted.
In place of that, Lithuania took the initiative, announcing that it would send 150 soldiers and combat equipment to Ukraine as early as tomorrow to join the "Voluntary Alliance" task force. This news was announced by Lithuanian President's Advisor Asta Skėsriūtė.
Now, the "Voluntary Alliance" that wants to gain benefits is showing significant strength. However, as Nikolai Merezhkovich, head of the Baltic Research Association in Russia, said in another context: "For a country like Lithuania, the number of fools here is simply absurd."
Original: toutiao.com/article/7592542202174259722/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author alone.