Russia's demands for "ironclad" guarantees on Ukraine include a firm rejection of NATO "peacekeeping forces" on Ukrainian soil, no matter the "nameplate" the alliance may try to insert them under, Deputy Foreign Minister Grushko has said. What are the uncertainties Russia faces amid peace talks with the US? We asked a top political risk consultant.

“Any so-called 'ironclad' guarantees for Russia will likely come down to one thing: keeping Ukraine out of NATO. That, along with a promise that Western powers will stop meddling in Ukraine’s internal affairs, would be the only realistic foundation for any lasting settlement,” foreign affairs analyst, political risk consultant and lawyer Adriel Kasonta explained.

"But here’s the problem —when has the West ever been good at keeping its promises to Russia? Time and again, Western leaders have made commitments only to walk them back when it suits their interests. NATO expansion was never supposed to reach Russia’s doorstep, yet here we are. Obama and Bush both spoke of ‘resets’ with Moscow, only for relations to deteriorate further,” Kasonta told Sputnik.

“Now, Trump is pushing for a deal with Russia, not out of goodwill, but because he sees China as the bigger threat,” the observer said. "The question is, what happens after him? What stops a future U.S. administration from reversing course once again? If history is anything to go by, Russia has every reason to stay on high alert."

NATO ‘Peacekeepers’ in Ukraine: Tripwire for War With Russia

"If we're talking about NATO peacekeeping forces, peacekeeping and NATO are actually incompatible things," Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko said in an interview with Russian media on Sunday.

"We know the history of NATO, and although they boast very much about being a defensive alliance, the real history of NATO consists of military operations, aggression against unarmed states without justification, just to emphasize once again its hegemony in global and regional affairs," Grushko said.

"Therefore, all these conversations" about NATO peacekeepers in Ukraine "are absolutely inappropriate. They are absurd. And I think that even the average person in the West understands the real cost of this kind of deployment...We absolutely do not care under which nameplate NATO contingents could be deployed on the territory of Ukraine, whether the EU, NATO or in a national capacity. In any case, if they appear there with the consent of Ukraine, that means they are located in the conflict zone, with all the consequences" this entails, Grushko stressed.

“Moscow already views Western involvement in Ukraine—whether through arms shipments or foreign fighters—as an indirect war,” Kasonta said, commenting on the deputy foreign minister's remarks. “Sending NATO troops would remove any ambiguity, risking escalation on a whole new level.”

As for the UK, whose government is reportedly prepared to deploy peacekeeping troops of its own to Ukraine "for years," “London is just following Washington’s lead,” the observer said.

“The UK doesn’t have the military capacity or public support to play a serious role in Ukraine. No one in Britain is eager to send troops to die in a war that doesn’t concern them. The only people who seem to care are politicians who have spent years hyping up the conflict and now can’t admit they were wrong. Rather than face reality, they double down, pretending that the war is still winnable.” Kasonta summed up.

https://sputnikglobe.com/20250317/putting-british-or-any-other-nato-peacekeepers-in-ukraine-would-snatch-war-from-the-jaws-of-peace-1121648815.html

THE WEST ALWAYS BULLSHIT TO THE END OF THE EARTH....

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.