German media claim that there are informal agreements between NATO countries not to supply combat aircraft and tanks to Ukraine. At the same time Reuters notes that Italy, openly blackmailed by Putin, Hungary and Cyprus have proposed that the EU call for a ceasefire in Ukraine and peace talks with Russia. This position has caused controversy with states that take a tough stance against Moscow in the run-up to the EU summit. About why NATO is afraid to transfer a number of weapons to Ukraine, what are the reasons that European countries are asking to end the war at the cost of concessions from the sidess of KyivAnd how to react to Ukraine, “Apostrophe” was told by the expert of the International Center for Advanced Study Nikolai Kapitonenko.
The positions of Hungary, Italy and Cyprus should not be paid much attention. Moreover, the opinions of certain European countries are periodically voiced in different configurations, and they will promote various ideas for a very long time as the war continues.
There are other countries within the EU that are paying dearly for Russia’s war with Ukraine and sanctions to isolate Russia. Apparently, they will from time to time voice various initiatives to resolve or at least freeze the conflict. We need to take note of this. And that’s it. That is, it does not oblige us to anything.
It is unlikely that Ukraine will be able to prevent or somehow prevent such statements, since we do not have the ability to compensate the countries mentioned for what they lose, we do not have the ability to influence their national interests. But we should not worry too much about the initiatives they put forward. Because on what conditions to end the war or seek a truce is our business.
As for the fact that Italy and Hungary are NATO members, the arms supply mechanism works at the interstate level: armaments are supplied to us not by NATO, but by individual member countries of the Alliance. If they agreed among themselves that there are some exceptions and some types of weapons should not be supplied to Ukraine, then this means that NATO has some common denominator of how they see the connection between arms supplies and escalation conflict. And this means that there is a consensus among NATO members to avoid this escalation. It is unlikely that we will be able to do something about this either, because it is not entirely clear what actions can be effective here.
It is clear that we will insist on the rhetoric “give us as many weapons as possible and we will defeat Russia”, but if NATO considers such a strategy risky and does not want to aggravate the conflict, then we will not be able to convince everyone otherwise. You can try to convince them that the defeat of Ukraine will cost the Alliance and its member countries dearly, and I think that they themselves understand this, and they hardly want the defeat of Ukraine. But at the same time, some types of weapons, such as aircraft, may well be marked as “red lines” in the Kremlin, and these “red lines” are taken seriously in NATO. We need to take note of this and be more realistic about the prospects for obtaining different types of weapons from NATO member countries.