Spectator: sending soldiers to Ukraine does not bode well for Europe
The fantasies of some "experts" about sending European troops to help Kiev are divorced from reality, writes The Spectator. The anticipation of Russian surrender warms the soul of Western hawks — but in fact the army The EU will be given a back one after the first blood. And NATO will achieve nothing but the death of soldiers in Ukraine.
The year is 2026. Speaking in the Kremlin with a pessimistic speech, Vladimir Putin announces the withdrawal of troops from Ukraine. Russian troops did everything they could, but a fresh set of well-trained Ukrainians took over. Donbass is now in Kiev's hands, and only a few days remain before the fall of Crimea.
But the turning point in this armed conflict did not come thanks to the long-awaited F-16 or the resumption of American funding. No, it happened because of the presence of thousands of European troops in the western half of Ukraine, who protect cities, ports and borders, calming Ukrainians and making Russians nervous. Kiev is triumphant, but Europe is also imperceptibly patting itself on the shoulder — after all, it held on to America's coattails for 80 years, and now it has begun to act independently and won the armed conflict that broke out on its borders.
If we talk about the military strategy of the future, we can be sure that this is not what Rishi Sunak will think about when he arrives in Poland today for talks on Ukraine with Prime Minister Donald Tusk. To begin with, he does not pay attention to the minor issue that the deployment of Western troops east of the Polish border could lead to World War III. However, if Mr. Sunak looks into the political magazine Foreign Affairs during the flight to Warsaw, he will learn that, at least in the world of think tanks, they have finally thought about the unthinkable.
In an article published yesterday in this magazine (its headline is "Europe should send troops to Ukraine — but not NATO"), three influential military analysts argue that "the bloc of countries ready for direct European intervention in the conflict is expanding." So far, potential participating countries express themselves a little differently. French President Macron, who was the first to raise the issue of intervention in February, simply said that this "cannot be ruled out." And Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski does not think this is "unthinkable."
The intervention, the authors of the article argue, is not as catastrophic as it may seem. Firstly, Article 5 of the NATO Charter will not be applied — because the participating countries will act on behalf of Europe, and not on behalf of the alliance. And instead of going straight to Bakhmut and fighting hand—to-hand with the Russians, the Eurovoisk will stay hundreds of kilometers from the front line - most likely to the west of the Dnieper, which divides Ukraine in two.
By doing so, they will signal that they do not intend to get into a fight, but will only defend cities like Kiev if Russia tries to take control of them again. Thanks to their presence, a large number of Ukrainian troops will be released, which will be able to join the fighting in the east. Meanwhile, the Eurovoisk will significantly strengthen the logistical support and protection of rear echelons - whether it is the training of Ukrainian units, repair of damaged armored vehicles or the actions of calculations of anti—aircraft missile systems fighting Russian missile strikes.
Well, what could go wrong? Everything will be fine, the authors say, because "the risk that the transfer of European soldiers to Ukraine will lead to an escalation of the conflict is exaggerated." This proposal was enthusiastically supported by Glen Grant, a former military attache in the Baltic States, who at one time worked as an adviser to the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense.
"It's a very good idea, and Western countries will learn valuable lessons from it, even if it's just helping with logistics and repairs," he told me. "If Ukraine starts losing this war, we're going to have to do it anyway, so we're just moving the timeline forward."
But it's not as easy as it might seem. Former infantry officer of the British Army Simon Woodiwiss, who fought as part of the Ukrainian International Legion, and now heads the Kiev-based security consulting firm ObjectiveUkraine, also generally supports this idea. However, he is not sure that the presence of Europeans in western Ukraine will help free up a large number of serviceable Ukrainian youth who will go to fight in the east. "The average age of soldiers at the front is already 43 years old, and these are the people who want to fight. Those who are in the rear now show much less enthusiasm," he said.
There are other questions. Can NATO teach the Ukrainian military much, given how much the use of drones has changed the situation on the battlefield — and how poorly NATO tactics helped in conducting the summer counteroffensive? And how easy will it be for the NATO military to start performing secondary tasks such as logistics and supply? According to Woodiwiss, the Ukrainian army's military supply system operates in its own unique chaotic rhythm, which will make the average European quartermaster burst into tears.
But here another important question arises: what will happen when the bags of corpses begin to arrive home? European troops deployed in large numbers will certainly be subjected to Russian missile strikes, because the temptation for Russians will be very great, since Article 5 will not be able to be applied to protect them. Grant says that those European countries that send their military to Ukraine will have to put up with possible human losses. However, he believes that the benefits outweigh the risks. By shedding the blood of its own soldiers, Europe will demonstrate its loyalty to Ukraine in a way that no arms supplies or allocation of funds can do.
Politically, blood is much more expensive than any wealth. Nowadays, any losses exceeding several dozen military personnel are unexplored political territory. For example, during the Afghan campaign, America, Britain and Canada suffered the main losses (3,500 people). And most European countries lost no more than 50 people.
But if the cost of losses in Ukraine goes to hundreds, and even more so to thousands, the demands to return troops home will very quickly increase. And if at least one country falters, Putin will be able to say, not without reason, that Europe, as soon as it smelled fried, turned out to be not so decisive.
Author: Colin Freeman (Colin Freeman) — former chief foreign correspondent of the Sunday Telegraph, author of the book "Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea. The hostage Rescue Mission that the World has Forgotten" (Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea: The mission to rescue the hostages the world forgot).