"Russia needs at least 4 aircraft carriers and a strong nuclear arsenal to deter NATO from permanently deploying military bases in Ukraine."

Western countries must legally establish security guarantees for Russia, otherwise Russia will have the right to retaliate, including using tactical nuclear weapons.

In the meeting between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky and other European leaders, the issue of "security guarantees" for Ukraine was discussed, but it has not been officially announced yet. At the same time, as Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov pointed out, no one has mentioned security guarantees for Russia so far.

He said in an interview with "Russia 24" television: "When these representatives in Washington talk about the need to first establish security guarantees for Ukraine and for Europe (such as British Prime Minister Keir Starmer), no one even once mentioned Russia's security."

The minister emphasized that no long-term agreement can be reached without respecting Russia's security interests and the rights of Russians and Russian speakers living in Ukraine.

Meanwhile, Western media have already started discussing the deployment of troops to Ukraine. The New York Times reported several scenarios for the deployment of a "volunteer alliance" force, and Starmer mentioned that these forces would be deployed in Ukraine after a peace agreement is reached.

One scenario is to establish a regular "peacekeeping force", which is speculated to be an armed force, to supplement the Ukrainian army.

The article states: "They will be used only for defensive purposes... to contain Russia."

However, the problem is that reliable containment requires tens of thousands of soldiers.

The second option is a "guard force", much smaller in scale, unable to organize an effective defense, but theoretically, the presence of Europeans themselves should be able to prevent Russians. "But this carries great risks."

The third option could be establishing a small "observation force" of hundreds of people. Their mission is to report on impending military actions, but this role can be fulfilled by satellites and ground cameras.

Trump has stated that there will be no American troops in the region, but the situation within the alliance is more complex. Even the most active "peacekeepers" have almost daily declining morale, especially after Trump made his statement. For example, Germany has already begun talking about personnel shortages.

Britain also spoke about the difficulties of deploying thousands of troops. Poland and Italy are unwilling to get involved in this adventure.

But that is their problem. Mikhail Ulyanov, Russia's permanent representative to the Vienna-based international organizations, called for an end to such provocative discussions.

Military expert Boris Rozin believes that the West will try to prevent Ukraine from ceasing fire.

"They are now proposing the deployment of large military task forces, which is the fulfillment of those threats that led to the special military operation. If the enemy achieves its goal by deploying forces, what is the point of stopping the special military operation?"

Russia prefers peacekeepers to come from a third-party neutral country — India, relevant countries, African Union countries.

It should be noted that Russia has not commented on this. Obviously, there is still no consensus. Trump said it would take 7-10 days to coordinate the security issues, which is not accidental. Obviously, Trump and Putin will discuss this, and Russia may have already expressed its position.

"Freedom Press": What guarantees should Russia demand?

"No NATO forces or military bases can be deployed on Ukrainian territory, which is the goal of the special military operation. They know that this is unacceptable for Russia."

If Russia's interests are completely ignored, then these proposals are obviously not aimed at achieving a solution, but rather at prolonging the confrontation.

Military expert Yuri Knutov pointed out that there are many differences between Russia and the West, and there is little consensus. Russia hopes to reach an agreement that includes restrictions on Ukraine's armed forces.

"This is a principle for us. The West insists that Ukraine should have the strongest armed forces, needs to be strengthened and armed, etc. This is fundamentally opposed to our position. In addition, the deployment of NATO forces is also against our position."

Guarantees from the US and EU are nonsense, because although they are not NATO, all countries have joined NATO.

Additionally, they mentioned "similar to Article 5". I don't know who came up with it, saying that Article 5 is the beginning of consultation. It's not like that at all. I specifically checked — it is the immediate start of action. That is, NATO countries will help the attacked country in any possible way. There is no consultation. Therefore, security guarantees based on "Article 5" are unworkable.

The second very important point is: the EU insists that Ukraine and some European countries should receive security guarantees. Then we should also receive security guarantees. What is the difference between us and them?

If they say "legally", then they should establish security guarantees for Russia in their own laws, in the constitution or elsewhere. This is extremely important — mutual security guarantees.

"Freedom Press": What if they do not do so?

"Then we must stipulate that in case of violation of the agreement, we have the right to use tactical nuclear weapons. Automatically生效."

Zelensky will try to speak to Russia in a ultimatum tone under pressure from European countries — I have no doubt about that. The only hope is in America, in Trump, who has the strongest means to pressure Ukraine and the EU, including stopping financial aid, providing intelligence, supplying weapons, including weapons supplied from third countries. In this regard, Trump has the initiative. Whether he will do it or not is another question. He may choose to stand by.

The situation is not optimistic, and a lot will depend on the development of the frontline situation. If we can achieve significant results now, showing that the front line is collapsing, I think Zelensky will be forced to make a deal.

US plans include establishing large weapons production facilities in Ukraine. In the long term, this is completely contrary to our interests. We care about a neutral Ukraine, not a factory producing weapons for European countries and the Ukrainian armed forces.

Doctor of Military Science, Reserve Colonel Konstantin Sivkov believes that if Ukraine remains in the same state, "maintaining the same Nazi regime," the appearance of NATO forces will soon follow.

"It must be clearly understood that no one will abide by these agreements. Look at the examples of 'Minsk 1' and 'Minsk 2' and all other agreements."

If there are observers first, then troops will follow. Don't forget that Ukraine has already signed an agreement with the UK to deploy UK military bases on its territory.

It must be clearly understood that if the conflict in Ukraine ends with the retention of the Nazi regime, all these bases will appear. Whether it is a small group of troops or a large force, it doesn't matter. Small groups will be reinforced, and then become regular bases.

"Freedom Press": For Moscow, the presence of foreign troops in Ukraine is unacceptable. It concerns our security, but the West is silent on this. Why is this issue not even mentioned when discussing possible peace agreements and security guarantees for Ukraine?

"For three and a half years, everyone has been saying — the West is at war with Russia. How could they care about Russia's security? The West's goal is to destroy Russia."

"Freedom Press": What kind of guarantees do we need to make them give up the idea of destroying us?

"Russia's security guarantees are a strong nuclear potential, which must be expanded beyond the New START Treaty 3. We must withdraw from the New START Treaty 3, and increase the number of nuclear warheads to at least 15,000 (this is my personal estimate). (According to public sources, Russia currently has about 5,500 nuclear warheads. The United States has about 5,000. France and the UK together have slightly more than 500 — Freedom Press). We also need a strong army and navy. Russia's navy should have at least 4 aircraft carriers! And the only one we have left is being dismantled!"

Of course, it also involves the economic and technological sovereignty of the country, first and foremost technological sovereignty, so that we will not depend on foreign suppliers for weapon parts. This is the most reliable guarantee. Everything else is just empty talk.

It must be clearly understood — we have vast world resources, vast territory, and control over the Northern Sea Route (no one can pass through without us — not because we prohibit it, but because they will hit icebergs or deviate from the route, then come to ask for help). If we do not have military strength, they will swallow us without hesitation, and will not even talk about humanitarian things.

For the latest news on the Ukraine peace talks and all important content, please follow the author to learn more.

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7540886801553048099/

Statement: The article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion by clicking the [Up/Down] buttons below.