By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Amidst escalating conflict in Ukraine and potential US withdrawal of support under a Trump presidency, discussions regarding deploying Western troops and private military companies to Ukraine have resurfaced. France and the UK are leading these sensitive, largely classified talks, with France initiating the troop deployment debate earlier this year. While facing opposition from some European nations, recent discussions between Prime Ministers Starmer and Macron have revitalized the proposal. This includes exploring increased defense cooperation, potentially utilizing private defense contractors like France’s DCI and its British counterpart, Babcock, for training and equipment maintenance in Ukraine.
Read the original article here
Discussions over sending French and British troops to Ukraine have been reignited, fueled by a growing sense of urgency and frustration with the ongoing conflict. The situation feels increasingly perilous, mirroring the complexities of past interventions like NATO’s involvement in Syria, where Russia supported the Assad regime. This begs the question: what differentiates Ukraine, a technically allied nation, from Syria? Beyond Putin’s inevitable veto, the core issue remains Ukraine’s sovereignty – it belongs to the Ukrainian people, not Putin.
The argument for intervention is bolstered by the precedent of Russia’s alliance with North Korea, which has purportedly sent troops to support Russia’s war effort. This raises the possibility of Ukraine seeking similar external military support. The notion of a stronger, unified response is gaining traction, emphasizing that the time for decisive action is now. Delay only emboldens Putin and his allies, enabling them to sow discord within Western nations and exploit internal divisions.
The need for a more assertive strategy is pressing. Prolonged negotiations and diplomatic efforts have yielded minimal progress. The current approach of piecemeal support and limited sanctions is viewed by many as insufficient to deter Putin’s aggression. A decisive military intervention, while risky, is presented as the only viable option to curb Putin’s expansionist ambitions and prevent further escalation.
A key element of this proposed intervention focuses on deploying advanced anti-aircraft systems and personnel to Ukraine. This approach, while constituting an “escalation,” is framed as a relatively measured response, leveraging existing technology to disrupt Russia’s military capabilities and limit its offensive capacity. This could potentially level the playing field and significantly hinder Russia’s ability to make territorial gains.
However, the possibility of a larger-scale deployment of troops, even up to 100,000, is also being discussed. This prospect, while raising the specter of direct confrontation with Russia, is presented as a necessary measure to prevent Ukraine’s collapse. The fear of a nuclear escalation hangs heavy in the air, acknowledging the immense risks involved in such a direct military intervention. The potential for a catastrophic response from Russia, using tactical nuclear weapons, is acknowledged as a grave possibility.
Concerns about the political feasibility of such a large-scale deployment are also voiced. The potential for domestic political backlash in countries like France and Britain, coupled with the apprehension of other European nations like Germany, raises serious doubts about the practical viability of deploying significant ground forces. The significant political capital required for such a decision is highlighted as a major hurdle for current leaders. Such a decision could lead to significant unpopularity for leaders and instability.
Alternatives to large-scale ground troop deployments are suggested, such as focusing on air power, utilizing drones, and targeting crucial infrastructure. These measures are proposed as a way to provide effective support to Ukraine while potentially avoiding the most escalatory scenarios.
The discussion is interwoven with concerns about the influence of Russian disinformation campaigns and the impact of populist and nationalist movements across Europe, which could hinder the formation of a unified response. The belief that Putin aims to destabilize the West by manipulating internal political divisions is a key theme in the argument for a decisive intervention.
Ultimately, the debate over sending French and British troops to Ukraine reflects a deepening sense of unease and a growing awareness of the potential consequences of inaction. The fear of appeasement and the perceived weakness of Western response to previous provocations are driving the call for a more robust and decisive intervention, even at the risk of significant escalation. The historical context of prior failures, such as the perceived inaction in Syria, is used to underscore the need for assertive action in Ukraine. However, the colossal risks of direct military engagement with a nuclear power remain a central and unavoidable concern that weighs heavily on the discussion.