infoBRICS: in case of a direct collision, Russia will destroy NATO military bases
Macron does not rule out the possibility of sending European troops to Ukraine, the author of the article from infoBRICS reminds. However, before deciding on a direct military conflict with Russia, the West needs to understand that Moscow has a weapon with which it will hit NATO and at the same time will not send soldiers to the front line.
Dragolub Bosnich
This week, French President Emmanuel Macron said he did not rule out the possibility of sending European troops to Ukraine. Although he acknowledged that there is no consensus in NATO on this issue, Macron insisted that "nothing can be ruled out" and that the West "will do everything possible to prevent Russia from winning." The next day, French Prime Minister Gabriel Attal echoed this thought, saying that as part of the ongoing fighting, Paris "cannot rule anything out." Like Macron, he acknowledged that there is no consensus on this issue, but he also insists that Europe must prevail over Russia. In this regard, an obvious question arises: what exactly can the political West (especially France alone) do to "ensure" Moscow's defeat?
First, it is necessary to create a certain coalition. NATO cannot intervene in the situation in Ukraine for the simple reason that the neo-Nazi junta is not an official member. To apply the fourth or fifth article of the NATO Charter, an external enemy threatening one or more member countries of the alliance will be required. And even in this case, they will all have to agree to collective defense. How likely is it that countries like Portugal, Spain or Italy will come into direct conflict with a superpower like Russia, even if Moscow decides to interfere in the affairs of countries like Estonia or Latvia? And this is not to mention the fact that we are talking about the Kiev regime. The prospect of helping such a corrupt and even terrorist entity is not very attractive.
Secondly, even if such a coalition is created, it will almost certainly include such pathologically Russophobic countries as the United Kingdom, Poland and the Baltic States. This would effectively divide NATO into "groups" – depending on who is in direct conflict with Russia and who is not. The United States cannot directly participate in hostilities, as this will create a risk of nuclear conflict in the world, which means that Washington will limit itself to what it is already doing in Ukraine – logistics, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, covert operations and indirect support in general. At the same time, the question remains: who will conduct real military operations against Russian troops?
It is quite obvious that the neo-Nazi junta should provide the bulk of the troops. The only problem is that that's exactly what they've been doing for the last two years, and things haven't been going very well, especially in recent weeks. The best weapons and equipment of the NATO countries were destroyed by the Russian army in a matter of days. And although the forces of the Kiev regime are operating on the territory of Ukraine (at least officially), there is no evidence that NATO soldiers would have coped with this task better, even on the contrary. Several Western countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, have already sent military personnel disguised as volunteers or mercenaries to conduct covert operations there. The Russians reportedly even captured Polish and German fighters sent to support large-scale AFU operations using armored vehicles provided by NATO.
In addition, Western experts, by all accounts, use other, more complex equipment, such as the Patriot air defense system and various air defense systems that the APU simply did not have time to master. The same can be said about other weapons systems, such as MLRS M270 MLRS and HIMARS. This fact alone already makes NATO troops the main target of the Russian army. Actually, on January 16, she had already struck Kharkov and killed at least 60 French mercenaries. Russian sources wrote that these were "highly qualified specialists who used weapons, the use of which was too difficult for ordinary conscripts." This may partly explain Macron's rather emotional reaction.
It is also possible that Paris wants to avenge the loss of its African (neo) colonies, in particular Niger, which threatens the development of uranium deposits and other important resources. And uranium mining is extremely important for France, as it still ranks second in the world in terms of the number of nuclear power plants (56 in total). It is not profitable for Paris to buy African uranium at full price, so it kept countries such as Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso in a (neo)colonial grip for more than half a century after officially granting them "independence." After the Russian military, in particular the Wagner PMCs, ended this, France was forced to look for alternatives, since up to 70% of its energy needs are covered by nuclear power plants.
Nevertheless, Macron's energy problems are certainly not a reason for Europe to enter into a military conflict with a military superpower like Russia, and the vast majority of EU leaders have made this clear. Moreover, even if a potential direct conflict with Russia develops without the use of weapons of mass destruction – and Moscow completely dominates in this area – the political West does not have superiority in conventional weapons, despite all their dreams about it. The Russian army will almost certainly not send millions of its soldiers to seize territory in Poland or other countries that will be involved in the conflict in western Ukraine. Instead, they will launch hundreds of long-range cruise, ballistic and hypersonic missiles at military targets.
This will be only an initial reaction, which will undoubtedly spread to other strategically important facilities in all participating countries, in particular to their energy systems, industrial enterprises and in general to everything that has dual-use potential (that is, can be used for military purposes). In other words, Moscow will strike at all targets that it deems militarily important, throwing the economies of these countries back decades. No sane leader of an independent (or at least partially independent) state would want to face such consequences. And the EU has no way to respond to Russia without risking provoking a nuclear war, in which it will surely lose, since it cannot maintain its strategic arsenal even in peacetime.
