By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a meeting of the Coalition of the Willing, it was announced that 26 countries have expressed their readiness to support a mission involving troops in Ukraine. These countries agreed to deploy soldiers as a guarantee force, or to provide support via land, sea, or air, once a ceasefire or peace agreement is reached. The mission’s primary objective is to prevent renewed aggression and ensure Ukraine’s long-term security, operating in defined geographic zones and not on the front lines. While Moscow has voiced opposition, NATO maintains Russia has no right to dictate the presence of allied forces in Ukraine.
Read the original article here
Macron says 26 countries ready to send troops or support Ukraine, and it’s quite the statement. But let’s unpack this, because the devil, as they say, is in the details. The core idea is that a significant number of nations are willing to contribute to Ukraine’s defense, but crucially, this commitment hinges on a specific condition: a ceasefire or peace agreement being in place. That’s the first piece to consider.
The nuance here is important. This isn’t about immediate deployment of troops into the thick of the conflict. The plans outlined involve support *after* a resolution is reached, potentially involving a “guarantee force” to prevent future aggression or providing support on land, sea, and air. It’s a preventative measure, a security net intended to prevent another invasion after the current conflict ends. The goal is clear – to deter further Russian military action and safeguard Ukrainian territory in the wake of any peace agreement.
Now, here’s where the discussion gets more complicated. The readiness to act “the day after a ceasefire or peace agreement is reached” highlights a significant element of risk aversion. The key to understanding this is the assumption that Russia won’t agree to any truce or peace unless Ukraine surrenders, which is very unlikely to happen. Some perceive this approach as cautious, while others might see it as hesitant, even cowardly. Why the reluctance to act before a truce? It’s a fair question, and likely boils down to fears of escalating the conflict and the potential consequences of engaging directly with Russia.
The criticisms levied are straightforward. Why the delay? Why not take decisive action now? Some commentators express frustration at what they perceive as a pattern of empty threats and a lack of concrete action. There’s a clear sentiment of “less talk, more action.” The frustration is evident in the call for an immediate troop deployment, particularly to an area like the Dnieper River, to protect Ukrainian civilians and free up Ukrainian forces to engage the enemy. Of course, any such action would inevitably come with significant risks, the most obvious being provoking a direct military confrontation with Russia.
A particularly critical point is the perceived lack of commitment from powerful nations. Some believe these nations have the means to provide real support to Ukraine, yet they are falling short. This fuels the sentiment that these countries are more interested in appearances than in providing meaningful assistance. The idea that these countries should invest in military capabilities rather than depending on the US for security also gets traction. There’s a sense that Europe should take the lead in its own defense, to defend its own.
The reality, of course, is that a peace agreement seems a long way off. Putin’s goals appear far-reaching, and Ukraine has shown no willingness to concede territory. This impasse makes the planned post-ceasefire support seem somewhat theoretical, even if it serves a valuable purpose. And in this current conflict, a lot depends on what Putin wants, and what Ukraine will yield. Without these elements, these troops are not needed.
The idea of reactive and proactive rules of engagement also enters the conversation. If forces are deployed, how would they respond to Russian aggression? And the implication is clear: any attack on allied forces should elicit a forceful and immediate response. This introduces the high stakes involved. Some voices warn of the potential for escalating the conflict, and the risk of sparking a wider war. And people have no illusions of the current state of events.
There’s also the issue of whether the countries really involved are playing a numbers game, or a confidence game. How many of these countries are really going to send troops? Is it mostly lip service? Is this a political play for “likes” on social media? The skepticism is palpable. There’s the feeling of a “war machine” awakening, a sense of momentum building towards something significant.
Finally, there’s the crucial question of timing. There’s an immediate push for intervention, to act “now”. The belief is that waiting will only exacerbate the situation. However, it is a very risky situation to be in. As one of the commenters states, it’s a potential breaking of WW3. And the underlying emotion is frustration at the slow pace, and the uncertainty of the war.