French President Emmanuel Macron has, over the past few months, mulled the dispatch of Western ground troops into Ukraine, saying, recently, in an interview with The Economist, “I’m not ruling anything out, because we are facing someone who is not ruling anything out.”
Few in Europe and the U.S. embraced Macron’s suggestion, but the French President’s overall logic was sound enough for Russia to respond today, announcing tactical nuclear weapons drills that target “provocative statements and threats from certain Western officials.”
Given Russia’s nuclear saber-rattling, Macron’s rhetorical gambit demonstrates that the mere act of even discussing a hypothetical intervention by Western troops worries an increasingly brittle Russia. If debate on a NATO intervention raises the pressure on Russia’s government to the point it acts out, real, concrete steps to intercede, putting NATO “boots on the ground”, may do a lot to end Russia’s disruptive, decade-long campaign to subjugate Kyiv.
There’s no immediate need for Western troops to take combat roles. In Ukraine, Western or other allied help with border security, logistics and administration can free an enormous number of Ukrainian troops from ancillary support missions, allowing the country to better handle front-line challenges.
A physical, “boots-on-the-ground” deployment of Western troops into Ukraine offers Kyiv a much-needed morale and battlefield capability boost. Intervention by Western troops—coupled with viable threats elsewhere on the Russian-NATO border—puts real pressure on Russia’s beleaguered dictator, Vladimir Putin. In Ukraine, foreign troops complicate Russia’s targeting efforts. They may even encourage Russia to study their unfavorable strategic situation and get real about ending their illegal invasion of a free European country and halting their unremitting—and very warlike—campaign against democracies across the globe.
MORE FOR YOU
The road to peace may only open after Europe draws a red line and backs it with force.
Risk To Western Troops Is Low:
Certainly, Western troops operating in Ukraine will be at some risk. But Western troops often operate under perilous circ*mstances, helping endangered governments or people.
Militaries can handle the risks in Ukraine’s rear areas. Right now, as the United States prepares to begin operation of a massive, 1,800-foot-long floating pier off Gaza, the Secretary of Defense is unable to guarantee deployed U.S. troops from the Army’s 7th Transportation Brigade won’t be fired upon as they bring much-needed humanitarian aid to Gaza.
The U.S. troops on the Gaza pier will be in a dangerous situation. With Israel and Hamas both continuing their war, U.S. troops offer an enormous high-value/high-status target. Hamas has already attacked the pier’s presumed operational area, and Israel, charged with securing the pier area, can’t help but wonder if a nihilistic Hamas strike on U.S. troops might deepen U.S. support of Israel.
The Gaza humanitarian mission is a complicated and fraught situation, but, despite the real risks to U.S. soldiers and sailors, America moved forward on the pier with little debate or hesitation. Ukraine offers a similar risky situation, with U.S. troops working, under hazard, to support a beleaguered population. An operation to support Ukraine, couched in similar humanitarian assistance terms as the Gaza pier effort, can be done just as quickly and with little debate as well.
Nuclear Saber-Rattling?
The idea of a confrontation between nuclear-armed states is always disconcerting to the West. In response to President Macron, Russia, wasted no time in announcing it would be carrying out exercises to “increase the readiness of non-strategic nuclear weapons forces to carry out combat missions…in response to provocative statements and threats of individual Western officials against the Russian Federation.”
But fears that Western engagement—even fighting—in Ukraine will lead to a nuclear confrontation are overblown. Russia has long used nuclear weaponry as a provocative cudgel, threatening and unveiling doomsday devices well before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine got underway. Bluster is a common Russian tactic.
Despite the West’s delicate efforts to avoid a nuclear confrontation, Russia has shown no hesitation in striking out at nuclear-armed rivals.
In nuclear-armed England, Russia employed chemical and radiological weaponry to assassinate residents and citizens. A nuclear exchange didn’t happen.
Russia has been at odds with nuclear-armed France for years without sparking a nuclear standoff. Russian mercenaries, backed by a comprehensive and dirty Russian disinformation campaign, have, over the past several years, chased French military forces out of the Sahel region in Africa.
Russian sources have, since January, claimed French mercenaries were operating in Ukraine and that Russian forces had carried out a “precision strike” that killed “French mercenaries.” Rather than turn to nuclear weapons, according to Politico, the French turned to the diplomatic option, summoning the Russian ambassador “over the deaths of two French humanitarian workers in Ukraine and disinformation campaigns targeting France.”
U.S. and Russian forces have come to blows and have even fought. In early 2023, Russian Su-27 jets brought down a U.S. MQ-9 surveillance drone. And, in 2018, in Syria, Russian mercenaries squared off against U.S. Special Forces troops, at an estimated cost of around 300 Russian casualties (Russia acknowledged the loss of only five citizens). Even this direct confrontation did not turn into an exercise in nuclear brinksmanship.
After so many Russian provocations, it is a wonder that the West hasn’t done more to turn up the heat on Putin’s regime, giving Russia a dose of its own saber-rattling medicine in the form of a direct, boots-on-the-ground intervention in Ukraine.
Troop Discussions Force Consideration Of Other Options
In short, any open theoretical discussion of a Western military intervention in Ukraine is healthy. Marcon’s musings, though somewhat shocking to some, prepares NATO for tough options in the future. With Russia on a war footing, there is no viable reason as to why Russia, if it takes Kyiv, would stop at Ukraine’s borders.
By making a “boots-on-the-ground” intervention in Ukraine a real and concrete option, the prospect of a wider wartime-level of commitment can force Europe and others to get real about exploring less directly confrontational options, like remedying Europe’s increasingly lackadaisical approach to sanctions enforcement and Russian asset seizures.
If Europe is unwilling to take the tough economic steps required to really squeeze Russia into ending their invasion—and halting Russia’s unremitting—and rather warlike—effort to destabilize Europe and other Western democracies—without the threat of war, the only options for Europe will be to either get directly involved in the fight or to get about surrendering to Russian-style authoritarianism.
