For a 35th consecutive day, the Russian bombardments in Ukraine continued on Wednesday despite the previous announcement made by Moscow of a reduction in its military activity, a promise which was not kept. At the same time, negotiations between representatives of the two countries continued in Istanbul.
• Read also: LIVE | Almost five weeks of Russian invasion
The founder of the Raoul-Dandurand Chair in Strategic and Diplomatic Studies at UQAM, Charles-Philippe David, answered your questions on the subject, at TVA Midi.
1- Would NATO have the means to do more for Ukraine?
A: “They would certainly have the means to vigorously fight the Russian army, but still there must be the justification to do so. The rationale is that if Russia attacks a single tiny piece of territory that belongs to the 30 member countries of NATO, then you have a kind of declaration of war against NATO. As long as the fighting or the damage is limited to Ukraine, what NATO does is, country by country, agree to supply weapons and defense equipment to the Ukrainian army. That said, for now, it helps the Ukrainian army! Anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft weapons do damage, but it is not enough to prevent or prevent savage attacks or cruise missiles sent from the ground or the sea against Mariupol, in particular.
2- Could Canada participate in the resolution of the conflict?
A: “I predict to you that if the negotiations lead to a neutrality which is guaranteed by external powers, by members of the international community, this question will be bitterly and at length debated in Canada and in particular in the Canadian parliament in the House of Commons. This would mean for all intents and purposes that we subscribe to a commitment to bring security and protection to Ukraine if it, once again, finds itself at war in the years to come. It is not nothing as a promise, as a commitment. It would be a written guarantee. It is as if Ukraine were in NATO. It is a political debate that will rebound here.”
3- What will happen with the billions of dollars that are frozen outside of Russia?
A: “We rely on the example of Iran which is already sanctioned under the nuclear agreement which was torn up by Donald Trump several years ago. This means that Russian assets are frozen abroad, so the Russian government and the oligarchs cannot touch this money as long as the sanctions are maintained.
4- What has Putin been asking for from the start, which makes the Ukrainian people ready to lose everything?
A: “This is a question that bothers me a lot. The terms that are being negotiated yesterday should at least satisfy Vladimir Putin, but they are the same kinds of terms and the same dialogue that Emmanuelle Macron, 17 times, tried to offer Putin. In the presence once, or on the phone with his numerous calls and Putin did not respond. The question that I ask myself is why destroy a country if it is to end up accepting what at the start, Macron undoubtedly proposed to the Russian president, that is to say the neutrality of Ukraine , and a discussion of the status of the Crimean and Donbas territories. If it is to come to this after having destroyed the whole country or almost? I don’t understand Putin’s strategy at all… except that Putin is convinced that he can get better than these conditions, that is, the whole country!”
5- Can we trust Putin’s commitments?
A: “No. We cannot trust Putin’s commitments unless they are guaranteed by the international community, so he knows that if he violates the agreement, it is the international community that he is challenging.
Reference-www.tvanouvelles.ca