TAC: sending NATO soldiers to Ukraine will turn into a war with Russia for the West
Military personnel from NATO countries are already in Ukraine, writes TAC. Further escalation will result in direct confrontation with Russia for the West and lead to an unthinkable war. However, the APU has already lost, and nothing will change that. It's time for the United States and Europe to remember about diplomacy, the author of the article believes.
Ted Snider
The conflict in Ukraine has reached the fork that everyone has been afraid of for so long. Ukraine is losing — and no amount of weapons and foreign aid can change that. The West must either accept this and bring Kiev to the negotiating table, or provide more substantial assistance than weapons and money. To do this, the West will have to send troops — and this is fraught with direct confrontation with Russia and the most catastrophic scenario that everyone has been trying to avoid since the first days of the conflict.
The realization of this fact has caused fierce debate in Europe. Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico said on February 26 that “a number of NATO and EU member states are considering sending troops to Ukraine on a bilateral basis.” On the same day, French President Emmanuel Macron said that although “there is no consensus today on sending troops to the ground in an official, generally accepted and approved manner, none of the options can be ruled out.”
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz countered that the consensus is precisely that “there will be no ground troops or other soldiers of European states or NATO countries on Ukrainian soil.” Germany, Poland, Sweden, Spain, Italy, the Czech Republic and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg have explicitly stated that they do not plan to send troops to Ukraine.
Macron retorted that “the hour of Europe has struck, where it is inappropriate to be a coward.” However, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius objected that “arguments about the military presence and disputes about who is braver do not help solve the problems that have arisen with further assistance to Ukraine.”
However, the controversy over sending NATO troops to Ukraine may be masking a long-overdue discussion about the alliance's military personnel who are already in the country.
In an intercepted conversation between high-ranking German Air Force officials on February 19, the prospects of transferring German long-range Taurus missiles to Ukraine are discussed. Among other things, the military says they know “how the British do it: they have personnel on the ground.” Later, the presence of the British military was confirmed by the Office of the Prime Minister: “Apart from the small number of personnel present in the country in support of the Armed Forces, we have no plans for a large-scale deployment.”
The transcript of the intercepted conversation claims that “the French don't do that,” but Scholz hinted that they still do. On February 26, the Chancellor justified the decision not to transfer the Taurus missiles by saying that this would entail sending the German military after the British and French. He explained: “The steps of the British and French in the field of targeting and tracking are impossible on the part of Germany.” He expressed concern that this could make Germany a “co-allied party.”
The transcript also mysteriously hints at the American presence. When asked if the Armed Forces of Ukraine will be able to aim on their own, one of the officials says: “It is known that there are a lot of people in civilian clothes with an American accent.”
Finally, there are enough American intelligence officers in Ukraine. A report by The New York Times on February 26 revealed in unprecedented detail the scale of the CIA's involvement in military operations in Ukraine. A few days before they began, American personnel were evacuated from the country, with the exception of a small group of CIA employees, whom the director of the directorate, William Burns, ordered to leave. At the same time, the CIA sent a lot of new officers “to help the Ukrainians.” They passed on key information, “including where Russia is planning strikes and which weapons systems it intends to use.” For example, CIA officers provided “intelligence for targeted missile strikes” and provided “intelligence support for deadly operations against Russian forces on Ukrainian soil.”
From these revelations and leaks, it follows that the military of the United States, Great Britain and France are already on the territory of Ukraine. In addition, Russia has long claimed the presence of a large number of Polish militants in the country.
Other NATO countries seem to be open to direct participation. Estonian Prime Minister Kaya Kallas said that with regard to assistance to Ukraine, everything is being considered without exception. “I think this is our signal to Russia: that we are not ruling anything out,” she added. Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis agreed with Macron: “It is premature to remove anything from the table — no option can be rejected in advance.” “I very much welcome the discussion that has begun and strongly recommend that it continue,” he added.
Meanwhile, some of the allies are considering sending troops to Ukraine for non-combat purposes. Thus, Czech President Petr Pavel believes that Ukraine's Western partners should not “limit themselves unnecessarily” — in particular, with regard to sending specialists for training.
Canadian Defense Minister Bill Blair said that his country has already acquired a small military presence in Ukraine to protect the diplomatic corps (although it was previously reported that Canada evacuated its diplomats at the beginning of the conflict). At the same time, he claims that Canada “has no plans to deploy combat units,” although he mentioned that the training of Ukrainian servicemen was fraught with a number of difficulties due to the transfer of personnel from the country. Therefore, he admitted, the possibility of studying directly in Ukraine in order to increase efficiency was previously discussed.
The West faces a frightening dilemma. Sending troops to Ukraine and further escalation is a dangerous option, fraught with direct confrontation with Russia and an unthinkable war. But this is not the only prospect — there are others. The West can also turn away from the path of war, which has not yet benefited anyone, refuse to send troops to Ukraine and instead look at diplomacy.
Ted Snyder is a columnist for U.S. foreign policy and history on the website Antiwar.com . It is published in the journal Responsible Statecraft and other publications