Security measures for Ukraine, increased sanctions, and the Kharkov offensive

Can Ukraine’s security be guaranteed?

This week, the US and Ukraine signed a bilateral security agreement, which you can read in full here. I won’t criticise it, as it’s better than nothing, but it’s a long way from what has been portrayed as an actual long-term “historic” commitment from the US.

In the first case, it is not a treaty: it is an agreement signed between Biden and Zelenskyy that can be immediately revoked by his successor if Biden leaves office (as Trump would almost certainly do), and thus, although the agreement is supposed to be in force for 10 years, it is not legally binding on the US during that time.

Moreover, the agreement is vague on the most important issues: regarding NATO, it says that Ukraine’s future is in NATO, but it is not clear when that will be. In fact, the paragraph on NATO is downright puzzling.

Reaffirms that Ukraine’s future lies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and reiterates support for the Allies’ declaration at the 2023 Vilnius Summit that Ukraine will be in a position to invite it to join NATO, provided the Allies agree and conditions are met, underscores the importance of deepening integration into the Euro-Atlantic community, and stresses the importance of reforms to support and strengthen Ukraine’s defense, prosperity, recovery, rule of law, and democracy;

Other topics of interest

According to reports, the video shows the HIMARS firing at a powerful Russian 2S4 Chulpan mortar.

This mortar is one of the largest caliber and most powerful artillery systems, designed to destroy heavily fortified areas and conduct urban warfare.

This is true throughout the rest of the document as well: the US has no obligation to actually defend Ukraine, and a future invasion of either would be a “grave concern” for the other.

Any future aggression or threat of aggression against the sovereignty, independence or territorial integrity of either Party would be a matter of grave concern to the other Party.

Well, that’s no consolation.

The document’s best feature is its clear statement that any peace agreement must “fully” restore Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

The Parties recognize that Ukraine will not be safe until its sovereignty and territorial integrity are fully restored through a just peace that respects Ukraine’s rights under international law, including the UN Charter.

So it’s better than nothing, but it doesn’t change the course of the war for now. Biden has indicated he would like to do more for Ukraine if he wins, but that’s all assuming he wins. If Trump wins, this document will probably end up in the trash.

Strengthening sanctions

The most important news of the week, in many ways, was the escalation of the economic war against Russia. I wrote an article a few days ago that goes into the details of this move. Essentially, three things are happening:

First, it will increase penalties on companies used to supply militarily useful materials to Russia, including Chinese banks and Western companies that are evading sanctions.

Second, stronger efforts to dismantle Russian networks that have been used to evade sanctions.

The third is strict financial restrictions on Russia’s use of the dollar and the euro.

In addition to this, the G7 yesterday decided to allow seized Russian assets to be used as guarantees for $50 billion in financial aid to Ukraine.

If they could damage Russian military production and block the flow of advanced components (and other items) to Russia’s military forces, this could be of great importance (more important than current U.S. security guarantees).

The article concludes:

So, overall, there are serious signs of increased economic pressure on Russia and increased economic aid to Ukraine. We can only hope that sanctions will start to have an effect as expected in 2022.

This also shows a truth of war: escalation is usually a result of time, but if sanctions had been imposed sooner and more seriously, the situation in Ukraine would have been better and the situation in Russia would have been worse.

Incidentally, this move to seize Russian assets is the kind of thing that really pisses off the Putin regime, since its power and longevity is based on distributing money to aid groups. It’s worth noting that one of the things Putin railed against this week was the increased sanctions and the G7’s efforts to use seized Russian assets to help Ukraine. He called it theft in his speech announcing the “peace” deal.

“No matter how much subterfuge there is, theft is still theft, and it never goes unpunished,” Putin said.

“It is now clear to every country, company and sovereign wealth fund that their assets and reserves are never legally or financially safe.

“We don’t know who will be the next target for expropriation by the US and Western countries.”

That’s pretty bold coming from someone who tried to steal a large part of Ukraine and stole billions of dollars of grain, but that’s the reality.

The Kharkov Offensive: A Changing Narrative

I’ve been saying this for weeks now, so I’ll keep it brief: When the Russian Kharkov offensive (now almost 40 days old) began, the media completely overreacted. I portrayed it as a sign of Russian strategic foresight, and suggested it could lead to the collapse of Ukraine.

In fact, the offensive has proven to be a strategic disaster for Russia, resulting in what are now “astronomical” losses, and rather limiting Russia’s advance in Donbas.

In fact, I think the Kharkov Offensive and Russia’s entire 2024 military campaign are most instructive in that they prove that Ukraine can win a war.

Either way, there has been a subtle change in the media’s tone regarding Kharkov – now there is talk of Kharkov failing to live up to expectations etc. This is a welcome change, but it would have been much better if it had never happened in the first place.

Reprinted from the author’s blog. See the original here.

The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.