French President Emmanuel Macron’s statements on the war in Ukraine provoked wide reactions at the European level and in French political circles, rejecting his proposal for the possibility of sending Western troops to fight on the ground in Ukraine. Germany, Britain and other European allies expressed their rejection of the proposal of French President Emmanuel Macron, who, at the end of an international conference to support Ukraine, considered that “Western troops should not be excluded” from sending to Ukraine. In the framework of the conference in Paris in support of Ukraine organized by France, Macron admitted that there is “no consensus today to send … ground troops“, but he added „nothing should be ruled out. We will do everything necessary so that Russia will not be able to win this war“, he said. Mykhailo Podolyak, an aide to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, said Macron’s remarks were a “good indicator” and showed a “deep understanding of the risks Europe faces,” even though Kiev had not publicly asked the west to send troops. For its part, the Kremlin responded by warning that sending troops to Ukraine “would not be in the interests” of the West. Kremlin spokesman Dimitry Peskov said the mere raising of this possibility constituted a “very important new element” in the conflict.
It is evident from the contradictory statements between the United States and the West about the extent of the state of confusion and lack of clarity of vision regarding the Russian war in Ukraine, especially with the continuing Ukrainian demands to send more Western weapons and equipment to Kiev, so that it can confront Russia during the coming period, in addition to Ukraine’s desire to regain control of many areas and cities that it lost control over during the past period. US President Joe Biden had assured his team before the Russian invasion of Ukraine that he did not want his troops to participate in direct combat against Russian forces in any way in Ukraine, which from the very beginning made clear the US position on the possibility of participating in the fighting in Ukraine two years ago. The United States believe that no foreign troops, from the United States or from any other country, should be deployed in Ukraine to help Ukrainians fight against Russians. France could choose to send troops without US support, but this is an unlikely possibility because the allies want to present a united front against Russia.
Sending of Western and US troops to Ukraine would cause an escalation of the conflict, as it will be seen as a direct intervention, which may lead to military counter-reactions from Russia, considering this move a direct threat to its strategic interests, while increasing the likelihood of the use or threat of the use of nuclear weapons, especially if Russia feels that its national security is under attack. The situation in Ukraine and Western military intervention may also affect the stability of the entire region, increasing the likelihood of conflicts in other regions. This war may cause Ukraine’s neighboring countries to feel threatened and worried about the possibility of this fighting spilling over into their territories, while the escalation of hostilities may lead to new waves of refugees and displaced people, putting additional pressure on neighboring countries and the international community to provide humanitarian assistance.
While any possible fight between Russia and some European countries will lead to the involvement of NATO in the fight as well, any attack on a member state is considered an attack on the entire alliance, which may trigger Article 5, providing for collective defense. The conflict will also lead to significant disruptions in world markets, including rising oil, gas and commodity prices. Russia and European countries, as well as their international partners, will reciprocally impose harsh economic sanctions, which will negatively affect the economies in question. International trade and investments will be disrupted, leading to an economic slowdown in many countries, especially those dependent on trade with Russia and Europe, which are experiencing significant losses mainly due to the war in the Gaza Strip, and the continuation of Houthi attacks on trade traffic in the Red Sea and the Suez Canal. The fighting will lead to large-scale destruction of vital infrastructure, affecting the supply of water, food and energy.
Since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, NATO members have avoided officially sending troops to the war zone in eastern Europe, fearing that European soldiers would engage in direct combat with Russian troops. Russia launched an attack with about 30 missiles on a military base with foreign fighters. About 30 thousand Ukrainian conscripts have received military training under the UK-led training program in the country, “British operation Interflex”, since 2022.
On the other hand, there are several reasons why the United States do not want to send ground troops to Ukraine, namely that Ukraine is not in the US neighborhood, it is not located on the US border, it does not host an American military base, it does not have strategic oil reserves, and it is not a major trading partner. US President Joe Biden also does not argue for military intervention in the country, he opposed Obama’s intervention in Libya as well as the increase of troops in Afghanistan, and he firmly defends his order to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan last year despite the chaos that accompanied that step and the humanitarian catastrophe that it left. As polls have shown, US citizens do not want to fight this war, they prefer to focus on economic issues, in particular, high inflation, which is something Biden should pay attention to as the presidential election approaches. One reason may be the main one, namely Putin’s stockpile of nuclear warheads. President Biden does not want to start a “World War” by risking a direct clash between US and Russian troops in Ukraine. There are no treaty obligations that force the Washington to take risks, while an attack on any NATO country is an attack against everyone.
Since 2015, soldiers from the US National Guard have been training the Ukrainian army, along with soldiers from other NATO countries, especially Germany and Canada, while recent increases in European defense spending and the decision of Sweden and Finland to join NATO demonstrate the tendency of threatened countries to achieve perfect balance, and this established trend should make us more optimistic about Europe’s ability and readiness in taking greater responsibility for defending itself. But, unfortunately, a second set of theories makes this optimistic conclusion less certain. Because security is a “collective interest,” coalition member states will tend to shirk responsibility or “free ride” on the efforts of others, hoping that their partners will do enough to keep them safe and secure, even if they do less.
Despite calls to send ground troops to Ukraine, European NATO members do not agree on the level or even what their main security problems are. For the Baltic states and Poland, Russia obviously poses the greatest danger; for Spain or Italy, Russia is a distant problem at best, while illegal immigration poses an even greater challenge. Contrary to some analysts, I do not think that this situation prevents Europe from establishing an effective defense against Russia, but it makes the issues of burden sharing and military planning more complicated. Convincing Portugal to do a lot to help Estonia will require some persuasion. Those who want Europe to do more face a delicate dilemma: they have to convince people that there is a serious problem, but they also have to convince them that solving the problem will not be expensive or difficult.
Also, the ambiguous role that nuclear weapons play. And if you really believe that nuclear weapons deter large-scale acts of aggression, you are likely to think that the British, French nuclear forces and the American ”nuclear umbrella” will protect NATO from a Russian attack under any circumstances (it is worth noting that Ukraine is not a member of NATO); and if so, then there will be less need to build a large and expensive complex of conventional forces. However, if you are not confident in the effectiveness of expanded nuclear deterrence, or you do not want to threaten the use of nuclear weapons in response to some low-level challenge, you will need the kind of flexibility that conventional forces have. This issue was controversial within NATO throughout the Cold War, as shown by the discussions within the alliance about the “flexible response” in the 1960s and the controversy about the “European missiles” in the 1980s. This issue remains relevant today, insofar as the constant presence of nuclear weapons may tempt some states to abandon their conventional forces.
It is clear from the above that it is difficult to realize the French desire to send ground troops to Ukraine to help Kiev fight against Russia in the coming period, but at the moment it has become necessary for Europe to increase military support to Ukraine more than attempts to enter into a direct conflict with Russia.
All publishing rights and copyrights reserved to MENA Research Center.
