It generates many deep questions. How many soldiers send, with what tasks, what rules of combat, what weapons, what protection and with what umbrella of political legitimacy?
Los knots and thorns of a possible European intervention of peace in the country invaded by Russia are now examined with forgetbut in reality it is from months ago on the table in the strategic offices of the European capitals. In, promoters of the plan, especially. Hay doubtshay Opinion disparityhay Variable commitmentsbecause there is a lot at stake.
In the Italian newspaper have published an analysis in which they review the project from the military plane, the risks of the road map and the land in which it should be carried out.
In US military circles it is said: “Fans talk about tactics, professionals talk about logistics.” Fans talk about maneuvers, “Boots on the ground“, And the professionals, of logistics. The observation is of the general and military analyst Antonio Li Gobbi cited by the prestigious medium. To adapt the concept, refine: “Fans speak of soldiers to send, the professionals to achieve.”
The debate intensified after Emmanuel Macron, the president of France, announced that he wanted to create a “Security Force” that would be deployed in “certain strategic places”. But a military mission, to cite General Li Gobbi in his analysis for defense magazines onlineit’s not “The sum of uniformed men”.
It requires clarity of objectives, an efficient chain of command and confrontation rules that are compatible With the real terrain, not with ideal scenarios. First of all, coherence between means, ends and political will. It is necessary select and make armament, armored vehicles, fire support and the ability to reinforce quickly with additional units in case of unexpected deterioration of the situation.
In recent months, the theme has also been explored in depth in a series of meetings in which they have participated think tanks and experts from England, Switzerland and Germany, and in which Italian analysts have also participated. The problem always remains the same: Russian veto to the European forces of NATO. Without the green light of the Kremlin, any presence, even for peace purposes, would only represent a strong temptation for Putin. What could want to “try” the reaction capacity of Europe. If the intention is to file contingents between the Russians and the Ukrainians, the fire recognized by both parties would be necessary. In the absence of an agreement, any use of force would be seen as a provocation.
Paris and London seem willing AFPray the hand. Others, much less. And even if a formal agreement was reached, the question of its legitimacy would remain in force. An interposition operation can only be accepted if the command is perceived as neutral. The EU would not be. NATO, less. The only credible actor for both parties remains the UN. That, by the way, he has a disastrous story in the management of complex missions: Congo, Somalia, exyugoslavia.
Then there is the geographical factor: una contact line of at least 1,000 kilometers longoften in hostile territories, which must be monitored by terrestrial, aerial and naval means. They would need Big and well equipped forces, ready to maneuver in depth. You could also imagine a deployment symbolicwith small contingents from several countries, to indicate the political proximity to kyiv and discourage any breach of the agreement by Moscow.
A small but visible multinational force. But then There would be no other, there would be no United States. Only Europe. And today Europe does not yet have the ability to respond autonomously. No political cohesion. The United States of Donald Trump proposes an army of engineers and workers in the power plants that should be under their control. Moscow and kyiv do not agree.
There is a lot of cloth to cut …
