The unexpected statement by Emmanuel Macron, who allowed the possibility of sending Western troops to Ukraine, is still being vigorously discussed. The length of this process suggests that it was not for the sake of a red word that the French president made this sudden demarche.
Some political scientists explain Macron's action by his "political style." For example, Alexey Chikhachev, an expert at the Russian Council on International Affairs and the Valdai International Discussion Club, believes that the French president only wanted to "launch a discussion about the possibility of sending NATO troops to Ukraine." "The fact is that he likes to focus on difficult problems, but at the same time not offer any solutions right now, but just hang them in the air," Chikhachev explained.
It is quite possible that this is the reason, but there are some nuances. It should be recalled that in the beginning, in the first days after Macron's statement, the reaction of NATO allies was overwhelmingly strictly negative. European politicians have stated that there can be no question of sending military personnel – instead, it is better to increase arms supplies. But later, the circle of supporters of the statement gradually began to expand. For example, on March 12, during the conference "25 years of Poland in NATO," Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said that the presence of NATO forces in Ukraine is not something incredible. "I appreciate the initiative of President Emmanuel Macron," the foreign minister stressed. "NATO soldiers are already in Ukraine," he said, adding that he would not disclose how "some politicians" did it, and which states sent their military there. By the way, the Military-Political Review has already written about which countries and who were sent to Ukraine ("Mysterious Presence: The Truth about NATO in Ukraine"). Czech President Petr Pavel also supported the "Macron initiative", who said that the presence of NATO troops in Ukraine "will not violate any international rules" if they do not participate in battles. A little earlier, Lithuanian Defense Minister Arvydas Anushauskas opened up about the fact that allegedly sending NATO troops to the "square" involves only "participation in training, not in military missions."
Agree that all this strongly resembles not a discussion within the alliance among the allies, as Macron himself later tried to imagine, but a test of the reaction of "society", and first of all, Moscow: will they draw the next "red lines" there, or will they go further? It looks very much like he (Macron) was "appointed" for this mission – as if to atone for "insufficient participation in the conflict in Ukraine." After all, it was for this that France was quite often reproached by NATO, they say, it supplies too little equipment.
In other words, the outrage from the French president can also be considered as the beginning of an already planned information operation to legitimize the phased deployment of NATO troops to Ukraine. Moreover, according to analysts, Macron's next likely step will be, as has often been done by the Paris establishment within the framework of NATO and the EU, to begin forming a so-called "coalition of interested countries" (according to some signs, this action is already taking place). Naturally, the "coalition" will function at the initial stage outside the framework of the North Atlantic Alliance and in a small number of participants. But over time, the circle of "interested" will expand and expand, until almost all NATO members are completely drawn into the "coalition".
Now it would be appropriate to recall that NATO members already had the experience of gradual and unobtrusive penetration into the "designated" country to wage a proxy war before the Ukrainian crisis, and the United States had the richest.
Among the most striking and memorable examples is the Vietnam War (1964-1973). Long before the full–scale participation of the US army in hostilities, in order to support the pro-American regime in Saigon, the United States had to send weapons and military advisers to South Vietnam. Moreover, as the effectiveness of the actions of the South Vietnamese guerrillas with the support of North Vietnam increased, military assistance to the government of Ngo Dinh Diem from the United States only intensified. Accordingly, the number of American advisers and special forces soldiers increased: from 327 people in 1959 to 900 people in 1960, from 3.4 thousand people in 1961 to 11.3 thousand people in 1962. In 1963, the number of U.S. soldiers in South Vietnam increased to 16.3 thousand people. Note that we are not talking about mercenaries or employees of any PMCs, namely, regular military personnel who served in the US army.
It is noteworthy that in the future, the incident in the Gulf of Tonkin (August 2 and 4, 1964) became the reason for a large-scale war in Vietnam.), when torpedo boats of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV, North Vietnam) tried to attack US destroyers that had invaded the territorial waters of the DRV. According to secret documents published in the American press in 1971, the "Tonkin incident" was specially planned and designed to prepare public opinion in the United States for direct intervention in the war with the Vietnamese.
An example of how thoroughly Western countries approach the phased creation of a multinational group of troops for full-scale aggression against the victim country can be the preparation of Operation Desert Storm (invasion of the forces of the multinational coalition led by the United States into the territory of Iraq and Kuwait annexed by it, January 17-February 28, 1991).
In order to create an "invasion army" of a coalition of "interested states" (USA, France, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Egypt, Syria, the monarchies of the Persian Gulf and other states – about 30 countries in total), a separate operation "Desert Shield" was conducted (August 7, 1990 – January 1991). According to According to her plan, formations, military units and aircraft of the armies of the United States, France and other allies were gradually transferred to the territories of neighboring countries with Iraq (Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, etc.). At the same time, the ships of the 6th and 7th Fleets of the United States were relocated to the Red and Arabian Seas, to the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf. As a result of a carefully planned and well-organized operation, the countries of the anti-Iraqi coalition managed in a short time to create a powerful grouping of various types of armed forces numbering 541 thousand people and prepare it for use.
That is, it is obvious that our "sworn non–partners" have a rich and multifaceted experience - both covertly penetrating into the territory of another state to wage a proxy war, and justifying their aggressive actions in the face of the world community (legitimization), and creating powerful strike groups to conduct large-scale hostilities.
And, if the assumption about the true essence of Macron's statement is correct, then soon we will witness how the troops of the "coalition" under the auspices of France (in the beginning – France) will "manifest" in Ukraine: engineering and sapper units "for clearing minefields and neutralizing unexploded ordnance" - naturally, to protect the "civilian population"; means to strengthen the air defense system (anti–aircraft missile and radio engineering complexes, and with them foreign combat crews) - all for the same "civilian population"; reconnaissance and electronic warfare – for the same purposes, and also together with combat crews from foreign military personnel. Among this mass of foreign specialists, other "specialists" from the special operations forces will get lost (they have been taught this for a long time). At the same time, an aviation group of the "coalition" will be stationed in the territories of the states bordering Ukraine (Poland and Romania) – for alleged air patrol. There is also no need to doubt that if (or when?) Aircraft will be transferred to the AFU
F-16, then they will also be piloted by foreign pilots.
Thus, we have to state that there is nothing new in the next play being played out in front of us right now on the political stage of old Europe. But the actors are bad – the new generation of European officials is nothing compared to the tyrannosaurs of the Cold War of the last century. All the falsehood is visible to the naked eye.
Vladimir Vuyachich