The idea of direct Western participation in the conflict is reportedly back on the table, according to the newspaper
The UK and France have “reactivated” talks on sending troops to Ukraine, French newspaper Le Monde reported on Monday. The idea has already caused a rift among European NATO members.
Back in February, French President Emmanuel Macron caused controversy by declaring his willingness to send ground troops to Ukraine “to prevent Russia from winning this war.” The statement was quickly disavowed by NATO officials, while German Chancellor Olaf Scholz told reporters that Ukraine’s Western backers were “unanimous” in their opposition to the idea.
The plan was seemingly shelved, Le Monde has reported, until British Prime Minister Keir Starmer visited Paris earlier this month. Citing anonymous sources, the French newspaper claimed that talks on a possible Franco-British deployment to Ukraine were “reactivated” by Starmer and Macron.
No further information was provided, and Le Monde speculated that this deployment could range from both nations sending private-sector technicians to repair military equipment (as Britain already does), to private military contractors (as Russia insists that France does), to flag-wearing personnel on the ground, either on the front line or to enforce an eventual ceasefire and peace deal.
Not that I think this is likely, but a part of me wonders if the US and France are telling “Israel” they need to wrap up a ceasefire with Hezbollah and by extension stop the genocide in Gaza, but only because they plan on majorly ramping up in Ukraine before Trump takes office.
Hard to imagine Biden ever getting tough with Israel, but I was expecting to see NATO look for an off ramp with Russia by now, not escalation.
I legitimately think Russia might be forced to drop the bomb, even if it’s just a tactical one on some unoccupied field somewhere in Northern Ukraine.
Considering these talks about sending troops, or even nukes, to Ukraine were revived/started after Russia launching an IRBM into Ukraine I don't think that would work at all. If the west directly attacking Russia didn't result in any retaliation by Russia, the IRBMs fell into Ukraine after all, the west might be more confident than ever that Russia will not attack them directly and from the point of view a nuke blowing up in Ukraine might just serve to further solidify in the minds of western leaders that Russia will not do anything directly against them, meaning they can escalate with "giving nukes to Ukraine" and such things.
Considering the situation of the west I'd say we will likely know where this is going within the next couple months anyway.
Either they're trying more of the Nixon mad-man theory out or they are as I've speculated preparing to move from the escalation of long-range strikes which cannot change the nature of the conflict to sending troops.
I speculate that they'll probably dip their toes in, e.g. they'll openly send some mercenaries or some small units to salami slice their way to sending a whole bunch of units by January (before Trump) or spring of next year to enforce the idea of freezing the conflict.
This is unacceptable to Russia and it should be. They've lost too many lives, spent too much capital in all senses of the word and should see the task finished not frozen so the west can rebuild Ukraine's armies for another go in 15 years and arm it to the teeth with missiles in the mean-time.
The people of the world and Russia cannot submit to their blackmail, we must remain unflinching in this game of chicken. I predict they will blink. But even if I knew they wouldn't I would still advocate against submission to their tyranny no matter the consequences.
Russia only had intended to occupy East Ukraine… but I fear that they’re going to have to occupy the entire nation at this point.
The only thing you can count on from narcissists is their own sense of self-preservation.
I think they will blink as well.
Speaking of blinkin', I wonder what sort of conversations he's having rn...
I imagine the US has told them to do this.
The thing I think most of the conversation around the salami slicing isn't accounting for is intelligence and counter-intelligence. Every new thing Russia does, and especially every new capability it demonstrates is an intelligence win for the West.
As the West ramps up production, that intelligence will be invaluable in deciding WHAT to ramp up production of, and how to design it to counter Russian capabilities.
Yeah that's why they're probably letting them shoot the missiles deep into Russia too. They'll use satellite analysis to better determine how Russian air defense systems work to attempt to counter them. Every missile Russia shoots down increases the risk that in 5-10 years they may have one they can't. Heck they still have enough time to apply some of these lessons to fighting China in a few years so that alone they may consider well worth the expenditure.
I've heard talk of ramping up weapons production, but can the gutted neoliberal west actually pull off anything significant?
No. I have seen estimates that it would take at least 10 years of concerted effort to ramp up US production to that scale.
Possibly? There's plenty of barriers, but there's enough risk that Russia has to consider it in their strategic analysis
