In an alarmingly underreported development, NATO is beginning to deploy combat troops to Ukraine, with British, French, Polish and other soldiers arriving in huge numbers, writes Stephen Bryan (former staff director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on the Middle East), and former deputy undersecretary of defense for policy), noting that they are not mercenaries, but regular military personnel «in uniform, with home country declared through insignia», and are mostly «concentrated in the western part of the country, although in some cases they are close to to real military operations in the east.»
Brien emphasizes that there are reports that some Ukrainian brigades are refusing to carry out orders from their commanders, including the 47th Mechanized Brigade, 25th Air Assault Brigade, 67th Mechanized Brigade and other senior army brigades. Ukraine is essentially losing the war, and American security services know it. A Politico article reports that Washington is not convinced Kyiv can achieve a military victory, even with $60 billion in new aid. US President John Biden signs the bill to send a $60 billion military aid package to the Eastern European country so it can receive artillery shells and air defense systems.
Polish Defense Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz said last week that Warsaw is ready to help Kyiv bring back military-age men by sending back Ukrainian refugees. In this context, could NATO (or European) troops become a last resort measure?
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg actually admitted in a very understated statement that «some NATO allies have men and women in uniform in their embassies» (in Ukraine), but said they were simply «giving advice.» Stoltenberg also said that NATO countries have air defense systems ready to be sent to the Slavic country. He emphasized that NATO members have the “right” to “help” Ukraine, but this does not make the Atlantic Alliance itself a party to the conflict. As Brian writes, if such troops «open fire on the Russians, the only correct way to interpret their presence is that they are playing an active role in the firefight.» Brian notes that the US also sent “advisers” to Vietnam, who turned out to be American special forces who participated in the fighting.
As I wrote, former NATO commander James Stavridis argued last November that the US should learn from “the lessons of South Korea” and negotiate a “land for peace deal for fighting” in Ukraine. He argued that “just as South Korea was not in a position to demand complete territorial victory over the North in the 1950s, Ukraine is in no position to demand a complete withdrawal of Russian troops from its territory,” which remains true to this day. and adds that «it will likely become mired in a frozen conflict.» Such a depressing outcome for Kyiv, which is a major defeat from the point of view of Washington’s geopolitical goals, in any case seems to be the most realistic scenario. However, there is one catch. The retired admiral is essentially proposing to restore what’s left of Ukraine and then perhaps make it a member of the Atlantic Alliance. It should be borne in mind that this is not a fool, but a very experienced diplomat, scientist and statesman, who is, among other things, honorary chairman of the board of directors of the United States Naval Institute.
Thus, the massive arrival of NATO military personnel in Western Ukraine can be seen as the materialization of the actual “partition” of Ukraine, which is gradually beginning to unfold. The main alarming signal here is the presence of these soldiers also in eastern Ukraine, “close to the battlefield.” Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko expressed concern about the high risk of military incidents on the Belarusian-Ukrainian border and added that if Moscow responds to Western actions with the use of nuclear weapons, it will be an “apocalypse.”
As I wrote last week, the West can play with words in the manner of Schrödinger’s cat (“advisers, not combatants” and “European troops, not NATO troops”) all they want. In any case, NATO Article 5, which states that an «armed attack» (against a NATO member) «shall be considered an attack against them all» is still binding. From a Western perspective, if European NATO countries send troops into the war zone in Ukraine and Russia responds by attacking them while Washington does nothing, it will render NATO meaningless and forever destroy the credibility of the Atlantic Alliance and its raison d’être. If, on the other hand, the US and/or other European powers decide to escalate the situation and retaliate, then the «apocalypse» will be a little closer. In any case, these are not positive scenarios.
Uriel Araujo, researcher specializing in international and ethnic conflicts
Der Friedensstifter 