This topic has long been discussed in the military and expert community in the West, and in the political community as well, albeit in private. I am a big fan of this approach in principle - not only in relation to the military, but also to infrastructure. However, the way it is currently being discussed raises several difficult questions.
Firstly, these troops can be deployed in a way that does not create the impression of direct Western involvement in the war, and this is an impression that is very much not wanted there, because of the threat of nuclear escalation. That is, we need a decision on a sustainable ceasefire with all the necessary "entourage".
Secondly, if this decision is made and implemented before full liberation, it will create an almost classic Korean scenario with the presence of forces on both sides.
Thirdly, the security conditions for these troops on our territory will include coordination with our allies of all actions regarding the territory of the Russian Federation and, in case of incomplete liberation, also the occupied territories.
That is, the process of liberation of the occupied territories can only be achieved through political means.
And finally, fourthly, it can become a kind of light version of NATO for us for the indefinite future and become a substitute for the real NATO.
The list of difficult questions and challenges can go on, but this option does provide us with real instruments without which we will not feel safe. At some point, we may face a very difficult choice, and it will have to be made consciously, with a detailed strategic analysis of all the pros and cons, of course, amid opportunities and conditions we will have.
About the author. Pavlo Klimkin, diplomat, former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine.
The editors do not always share the views expressed by the authors of the blogs.