It’s suppositionally possible that the Financial Times’ report becomes reality, but to be absolutely clear, this is pure guesswork and it’s much more likely that Russia won’t agree to that.
Andrew Korybko
The
US signaled its support for NATO troops in Ukraine last month after
Trump’s Special Envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner praised the
principle of security guarantees for the first time right after France and the UK committed to deploying troops there in the event of a ceasefire. This sequence was analyzed in detail here. A recent report from the Financial Times published right before the second round of the trilateral Russian-Ukrainian-US talks indicates that all three are very serious about this principle.
According
to their sources, they and Ukraine agreed to a three-tiered ceasefire
enforcement plan. The first 24 hours after any alleged Russian violation
would involve a Ukrainian military response, the next 24 hours would
introduce forces from the “coalition of the willing”, while the final 24
hours would then involve American forces if Russia doesn’t back down. A
minor border incident, perhaps even sparked by a Ukrainian false flag,
could therefore easily spiral into World War III in just 72 hours.
That
dark scenario is especially likely if NATO troops deploy to Ukraine in
the event of a ceasefire like NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte declared
would indeed happen in a speech that he made at the Rada coincidentally
on the same day as the Financial Times’ report. In his words, “Some
European allies have announced that they will deploy troops to Ukraine
after a deal is reached. Troops on the ground, jets in the air, ships on
the Black Sea. The United States will be the backstop.”
Russia has repeatedly warned
that it would target foreign forces that deploy to Ukraine, and it’s
also repeated practically just as many times its opposition to a
ceasefire, instead proposing a comprehensive end to the conflict that
resolves the root causes and results in the restoration of Ukraine’s
neutrality. Agreeing to the reported three-tiered ceasefire enforcement
plan, especially if that involves the deployment of NATO troops to
Ukraine, would therefore represent a very significant policy shift.
To
be clear, no Russian official has said anything that can even remotely
be spun as implying that the Kremlin is considering any of this, so it
remains solely in the realm of speculation. Nevertheless, it can’t be
ruled out either, and it’s hypothetically possible that Russia could be
convinced to agree to this. To continue with the thought exercise,
incentives could include Ukraine withdrawing from Donbass, Russia and
the US clinching a resource-centric strategic partnership, and rapidly phased sanctions relief, et al.
Such
a trade-off could conjecturally be rationalized by Russia as the
military, financial, and opportunity costs of continuing to pursue the
maximalist goals declared at the onset of the special operation now outweighing the benefits of mutual compromises.
The abovementioned quid pro quo would result in Russia peacefully
obtaining control over the most emotive territory that it claims, giving
NATO’s US leader stakes in Russia’s security and prosperity, and
gradually returning its oil to the global market.
Russia’s strategic arms – hypersonic Oreshniks,
nuclear submarines, Poseidon underwater drones for unleashing
devastating tsunamis, etc. – could also deter the West from escalating
after any Ukrainian false flag incident and thus ensure its security
despite the three-tiered plan and NATO troops in Ukraine. It’s therefore
suppositionally possible that the Financial Times’ report becomes
reality, but to be absolutely clear, this is pure guesswork and it’s
much more likely that Russia won’t agree to that.