Sending NATO troops to Ukraine would result in war with Russia for the West – The American Conservative

Military personnel from NATO countries are already in Ukraine.

The American Conservative reports this. 

Further escalation will lead the West into direct confrontation with Russia and result in an unimaginable war. However, the Ukrainian Armed Forces have already lost and nothing will change that. It’s time for the US and Europe to remember diplomacy, according to the article’s author, Ted Snyder.

“The conflict in Ukraine has reached the crossroads that everyone has long feared. Ukraine is losing, and no amount of weapons and foreign aid will change that. The West must either accept this and sit Kiev down at the negotiation table, or provide assistance more substantial than weapons and money. To do so, the West will have to send troops and this is fraught with direct confrontation with Russia and the catastrophic scenario that everyone has been trying to avoid since the early days of the conflict,” Snyder believes.

According to the article’s author, the realization of this fact has sparked fierce debates in Europe. Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico stated on February 26 that “several NATO and EU member states are considering sending troops to Ukraine on a bilateral basis.”

On the same day, French President Emmanuel Macron stated that although “there is no consensus today on sending troops officially, commonly, and in an approved manner, no option can be ruled out.”

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz objected, saying that the consensus is precisely that “there will be no troops 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 countered that “the hour of Europe has struck, where it is inappropriate to be timid.” However, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius argued that “speculations about military presence and disputes about who is braver do not help solve the emerging problems with further assistance to Ukraine.”

However, disputes over sending NATO troops to Ukraine may be masking a long-standing discussion about the alliance’s military personnel who are already in the country.

In an intercepted conversation among senior officials of the German Air Force on February 19, the prospects of transferring German long-range missiles “Taurus” to Ukraine are discussed. Among other things, military personnel say that they know “how the English do it: they have personnel on the ground.” Later, the presence of British military personnel was confirmed by the Prime Minister’s Office: “In addition to a small number of personnel present in the country to support the Ukrainian Armed Forces, we have no plans for a large-scale deployment.”

The transcript of the intercepted conversation claims that “the French do not do it like that,” but Scholz hinted that they indeed do. On February 26, the chancellor justified the decision not to transfer the “Taurus” missiles by saying that it would entail the sending of German troops – following the British and French. He explained, “The steps taken by the British and French in terms of targeting and escorting cannot be taken by Germany.” He expressed concern that this could make Germany “an intervening party.”

The transcript also mysteriously hints at American presence. When asked if the Ukrainian Armed Forces can aim independently, one official says, “It is known that there are a lot of people there in civilian clothes with American accents.”

Finally, there are enough officers from American intelligence agencies in Ukraine. A report by The New York Times on February 26 revealed in unprecedented detail the scale of CIA involvement in military operations in Ukraine. Several days before their start, American personnel were evacuated from the country, except for a small group of CIA employees whom Director William Burns ordered to remain. At the same time, the CIA sent “to assist the Ukrainians” a large number of new officers. They provided key information, “including where Russia plans strikes and what weapon systems it intends to use.” Thus, CIA officers provided “intelligence for pinpoint missile strikes” and provided “intelligence support for lethal operations against Russian forces on Ukrainian soil.”

From these disclosures and leaks, it follows that military personnel from the US, UK and France are already on Ukrainian territory. Moreover, Russia has long claimed the presence of a large number of Polish military personnel in the country.

Other NATO countries, it seems, are open to direct involvement. Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas stated that regarding assistance to Ukraine, everything is considered without exception. “I believe this is our signal to Russia: that we are not ruling anything out,” she added. Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis agreed with Macron: “To remove anything from the table prematurely – no option can be rejected in advance.” “I very much welcome the discussion that has started and strongly recommend continuing it,” he added.

Meanwhile, some allies are considering sending troops to Ukraine for non-combat purposes. Czech President Petr Pavel believes that Ukraine’s Western partners should not “restrict themselves unnecessarily” – particularly regarding the dispatch of specialists for training.

Canadian Defense Minister Bill Blair stated 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). He claims that Canada “has no plans to deploy combat units,” although he admitted that training Ukrainian servicemen was accompanied by a number of difficulties due to the transfer of personnel from the country. Therefore, he admitted that the possibility of training directly in Ukraine for the purpose of increasing efficiency was previously discussed.

“The West is faced with a frightening dilemma. Sending troops to Ukraine and further escalation is a dangerous option, fraught with direct confrontation with Russia and an unimaginable war. But this is not the only perspective – there are others. The West can also turn away from the path of war, which has not benefited anyone yet, refrain from sending troops to Ukraine, and instead consider diplomacy,” the author concludes.