Macron’s notions about NATO ground troops going to Ukraine may be rebuffed for now in public. But the inexorable dynamic over the past decade indicates that the idea could well become a reality shortly.
French President Emmanuel Macron caused a furor this week by speculating that NATO troops may end up being deployed in Ukraine. Hold it. They have been for over a decade, that’s why the war in that country erupted two years ago.
It was comical – if not pathetic – to see the French leader speaking out of turn, trying to project a tough-guy image with his delusions of grandeur as if he was Napoleon or De Gaulle reincarnated.
Macron puffed out his boyish chest and declared Russia “must not win the war in Ukraine”; and he suggested that in order to prevent that assumed dreadful outcome Western soldiers would get their marching orders to enter the conflict. (Note the unbridled arrogance and how the logic of such false assertions is not even remotely explained or justified. It’s total diktat.)
Immediately, however, the American and European counterparts balked at Macron’s troop talk and hurried to deny their support for Macron’s willingness to deploy NATO battalions. Notably, even the usually hawkish British and Polish quickly quashed the French proposal.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz was particularly anxious to repudiate Macron’s loose talk of troops. Herr Scholz said there would be no NATO or German soldiers going to Ukraine.
NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg – who normally gets excited by pledging unlimited military aid to Ukraine – also publicly rejected Macron’s notion about troops being packed off by the alliance to fight in Ukraine.
For its part, Russia warned that any deployment of NATO contingencies in Ukraine would mean the inevitability of the proxy war turning into a full-on wider war. In his State of the Nation address this week, Russian President Vladimir Putin suggested that the fate of such NATO contingencies would end up like that of the Third Reich and Napoleon. Putin also warned that the escalation of NATO’s direct involvement in combat would run the risk of inciting a nuclear conflagration.
On one hand, the furor sparked by Macron backfired on the French president. The backlash of rejections from NATO allies left him exposed and looking foolish. More of a little tinpot general than a tough guy.
On the other hand, however, while Macron might have looked isolated for now, his rash comments point to the troubling dynamic of escalation by NATO since the CIA-backed coup in Kiev in 2014.
NATO has been vigorously arming and training the NeoNazi regime that was installed in Kiev since 2014. Even Jens Stoltenberg and other NATO officials have openly admitted that background involvement.
In admitting the NATO presence in Ukraine over the past decade that also corroborates Russia’s reasoning of why it was compelled to launch its military intervention two years ago. Of course, the Western powers and their servile media never go as far as conceding that. They prefer to adopt a position of double-think and hypocrisy, claiming that Russia’s military action was “unprovoked aggression”.
Macron may have been shot down for now and made to look like a dangling clown. But as so often in the past, controversial NATO ideas are put forward and seemingly rejected out of hand, only to be adopted later. As Macron pointed out, Germany and other NATO nations were only two years ago reluctant to send military equipment beyond helmets and sleeping bags. Now these same entities have sent battlefield tanks and anti-aircraft missiles and are debating sending long-range weapons to strike deep into Russian territory.
US President Joe Biden once remarked on the unfeasibility of supplying fighter jets to Ukraine “because that would mean starting World War Three”. Well, Biden has ended up consenting to the supply of F-16s and his NATO side-kick Stoltenberg asserts that these warplanes could be used to hit deep Russian targets.
In other words, Macron’s notions about NATO ground troops going to Ukraine may be rebuffed for now in public. But the inexorable dynamic over the past decade indicates that the idea could well become a reality shortly.
NATO’s involvement in Ukraine is a strategic wedge to attack, weaken, and eventually vanquish Russia. What starts as a thin quantity inevitably grows into a bigger contingency.
NATO military personnel are already in Ukraine and have been since at least 2014 when they started training the NeoNazi brigades to terrorize the ethnic Russian populations in Crimea, Donbass, and Novorossiya.
Many of these soldiers are deployed unofficially as mercenaries or ostensibly as security details for NATO diplomats.
Numerous reports have attested to the presence of NATO troops in Ukraine in one form or another.
A Russian air strike near Kharkov in January killed at least 60 French military officers who were reportedly serving as private contractors. Other reports have cited as many as 50 American military killed in action serving in Ukraine.
It is estimated that up to 20,000 foreign personnel have joined the so-called “international legionnaires” fighting on the side of the Kiev regime against Russian forces. A fair assumption is that most of these soldiers of fortune are temporarily “decommissioned” NATO troops.
Germany’s Scholz let the cat out of the bag this week when he said he was opposed to sending long-range Taurus missiles to Ukraine because that would mean the deployment of German troops to assist with operating the weapons. Scholz misspoke by inadvertently disclosing that the British and French had already dispatched special forces to assist with their missile systems, the Storm Shadow and Scalp, respectively.
The same can be said about the American-supplied HIMARS artillery and Patriot systems that have been used to hit civilian centers in Donetsk and other Russian cities. There is no way that Ukrainian soldiers are operating these sophisticated weapons without the assistance of US troops on the ground.
It is also known that American, British, and other NATO forces are providing surveillance and logistics to enable Ukrainian strikes in the Black Sea against Russian navy vessels and bases in Crimea.
As one unnamed European defense official reportedly remarked to the Financial Times this week in reaction to the uproar over Macron’s troop comments, “Everyone knows there are Western special forces in Ukraine — they’ve just not acknowledged it officially.”
Considering the offensive weapons plowed into Ukraine by NATO ($100-200 billion worth) to strike Russia as well as the thousands of soldiers deployed there from NATO nations, it is rather academic to speculate about the future deployment of ground forces. The fact is NATO is already at war with Russia.
We are actually talking about a relatively slight difference in degree. That’s what makes the situation so perilous and abysmal. Russia is correct to point out the imminent danger of this conflict escalating to a nuclear catastrophe for the entire planet. And yet, deplorably, when the Russian President warned of this danger again this week, the mindless Western regimes and media immediately accused Putin of “nuclear saber-rattling”.
The only constraint preventing planetary catastrophe is Russia’s formidable nuclear and hypersonic arsenal which the Western imperial cabal knows it cannot overcome. Indeed, the Western warmongers are the ones who are more vulnerable.
It is to the eternal shame of Western so-called leaders that they are pushing the world to the brink through their arrogance and disregard for any laws. Their problem, as Putin pointed out, is that these effete Western puppets have no humanity or personal experience of suffering and therefore no empathy. They are psychopaths and sociopaths, doomed by their failing political systems, and they are driven to start wars as a way to try to save their own puny, pathetic careers.
Der Friedensstifter 