Commentary
Judy Dempsey
{
"authors": [
"Judy Dempsey"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Europe"
],
"collections": [
"Europe’s Eastern Neighborhood",
"Brexit and UK Politics"
],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Europe",
"programAffiliation": "EP",
"programs": [
"Europe"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Europe",
"Eastern Europe",
"Ukraine",
"Western Europe",
"United Kingdom",
"Iran"
],
"topics": [
"Foreign Policy",
"Security"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
Better The Brits Than NATO in Ukraine
At a time when the EU’s defense and security policy is largely absent, the UK has announced it will send troops to Ukraine. But will this unilateral move pay off?
By Judy Dempsey
Published on Feb 25, 2015
Source: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
UK Prime Minister David Cameron announced on February 24 that Britain would send military personnel to Ukraine soon to help train its army. RFE/RL's Rikard Jozwiak spoke to Judy Dempsey, senior associate at Carnegie Europe and editor-in-chief of the blog Strategic Europe about the significance of the move.
RFE/RL: British Prime Minister David Cameron announced this week that his country will send 75 military personnel to Ukraine. Do you think this might be a game changer in the Ukraine conflict?
Judy Dempsey: No. They are sending them for training, for civilian-military relations, for sorting how the military on some levels is to be organized. It is not about military preparedness. It is not about training them to go to eastern Ukraine. It is about putting modern structures into the Ukrainian Army, which is in desperate need of it.I presume that they will be working closely with NATO as well which is involved in some kind of training program as well that was announced at Cardiff last September at the [NATO] summit.
RFE/RL: Do you think that other countries might follow suit? Poland has for example said that they are considering doing something similar.
Dempsey: It is about modernizing an army. If other countries want to follow, I am sure they will unless they contribute to some kind of NATO training program. Actually if you think of it, it is far better that the Brits probably do it like this, very small scale, rather than NATO doing a big song and dance about it. You mention NATO, all the red flags go up in Russia.
RFE/RL: Do you think that a move like this could damage European unity over Ukraine, especially considering that Britain didn't inform its European allies?
Dempsey: The unity over the sanctions has held. As for the unity over this issue, it does surprise me that actually that the British didn't consult its European allies on this. What is interesting is that it seems like a real bilateral thing at the moment and has nothing to do with the European security and defense policy, which actually is entirely absent from the entire Ukraine crisis which I find very interesting.
RFE/RL: Do you think that this move might open up the possibility of European countries sending lethal arms to Ukraine since Cameron did say that Britain may be open to this in the future?
Dempsey: No. When you are trying to implement a cease-fire I don't think -- especially Germany and France -- don't want somebody to muddy the waters. I wonder what is behind the British prime minister's motivation on this though...
RFE/RL: What do you think his motivation is?
Dempsey: I don't know. Maybe the Ukrainians asked for some help. Maybe the Ukrainians feel it is better to go though Britain, which has a tradition of training armies and establishing strong civilian military relations. I don't know. I really don't know, it is a very strange time. But if it's to show or send a signal to Russia that Britain is involved in helping to slowly, slowly modernize the Ukrainian Army maybe that is his motive. But 75 [troops] is not a huge number frankly.
This interview was originally published on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
About the Author
Judy Dempsey
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Carnegie Europe
Dempsey is a nonresident senior fellow at Carnegie Europe
- Europe Needs to Hear What America is Saying
- Babiš’s Victory in Czechia Is Not a Turning Point for European PopulistsCommentary
Judy Dempsey
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Europe
- Taking the Pulse: Is France’s New Nuclear Doctrine Ambitious Enough?Commentary
French President Emmanuel Macron has unveiled his country’s new nuclear doctrine. Are the changes he has made enough to reassure France’s European partners in the current geopolitical context?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- The Iran War’s Dangerous Fallout for EuropeCommentary
The drone strike on the British air base in Akrotiri brings Europe’s proximity to the conflict in Iran into sharp relief. In the fog of war, old tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean risk being reignited, and regional stakeholders must avoid escalation.
Marc Pierini
- The EU Needs a Third Way in IranCommentary
European reactions to the war in Iran have lost sight of wider political dynamics. The EU must position itself for the next phase of the crisis without giving up on its principles.
Richard Youngs
- Resetting Cyber Relations with the United StatesArticle
For years, the United States anchored global cyber diplomacy. As Washington rethinks its leadership role, the launch of the UN’s Cyber Global Mechanism may test how allies adjust their engagement.
Patryk Pawlak, Chris Painter
- Global Instability Makes Europe More Attractive, Not LessCommentary
Europe isn’t as weak in the new geopolitics of power as many would believe. But to leverage its assets and claim a sphere of influence, Brussels must stop undercutting itself.
Dimitar Bechev
