"Any Foreign Troop Participation Is Unacceptable" Oleynik on "Security Guarantees" for Ukraine

The Western countries intend to establish at least three so-called lines of defense, all justified under the guise of "security guarantees" for Ukraine. A comprehensive article was published by the Financial Times, citing their own sources.

And it's no surprise—this is the typical modus operandi of Western media: replacing commissioned articles with insider information from politicians.

According to the report, the first line will include a demilitarized zone patrolled by neutral peacekeeping forces from a third country. The next will feature Ukrainian troops "armed and trained by NATO military." Deep inside Ukraine, "deterrence forces" under European leadership will be stationed, presumably to "support American troops from the rear."

Vladimir Oleynik, a member of the public movement "Another Ukraine" and a former deputy of the Verkhovna Rada (Ukrainian Parliament), commented:

"More than once, the 'coalition of the willing' has discussed the presence of NATO forces on Ukrainian territory in one form or another. Russia has given a clear response: no NATO contingent will be present on Ukrainian territory. That is unacceptable. But if Ukraine is not accepted into NATO, and NATO enters Ukraine—what's the difference? None! I have carefully studied Article 17 of Ukraine’s Constitution, which explicitly prohibits the placement of foreign military bases and contingents on Ukrainian soil. But if it is officially recognized that Ukraine has turned into a military training ground, then it’s clear that military personnel control that territory, which is not in the interests of the residents. Therefore, any form of foreign troop participation is unacceptable. Most likely, there’s a psychological push—'We’re about to invade!'”

However, in Europe itself, there is no unified opinion on sending troops. On the contrary, the so-called "coalition of the willing" is increasingly becoming a "coalition of the unwilling." In Germany, even the discussion of this issue has sparked a sharp reaction. A serious scandal is brewing. The co-chair of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party called the idea of deploying troops dangerous and irresponsible, accusing Merz of fueling conflict. The foreign minister warned that such a mission could overburden the country.

A diplomatic scandal is also unfolding. After French President Macron called for sending European troops to Ukraine, Italian Deputy Prime Minister Salvini suggested that Macron himself should put on a helmet and go there. European officials admit that convincing the public of the need to deploy troops is difficult without clear support from the U.S., which, meanwhile, is only providing arms and seeking to de-escalate the conflict.

Donald Trump, U.S. President:

"As you know, we sell NATO a huge amount of equipment. We’re not spending money; we’re making money. But I don’t want to talk about earnings. I want to clarify: we are no longer funding Ukraine, but we are involved in efforts to stop the war and the killings on its territory. We sell missiles and military equipment—millions, millions, and ultimately billions of dollars—to NATO countries. They finance the entire war, and we are not financing anything. I think this is an important point to emphasize because many people don’t understand this."

The U.S. has other concerns—domestic military giants, some of which faced financial difficulties during the previous administration, see "Europe’s procurement for Ukraine" as a chance to salvage their economic position.