0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
1,450 $
12 DAYS LEFT UNTIL THE END OF APRIL

Military (In)viability Of Direct NATO Involvement In Ukraine

Support SouthFront

Military (In)viability Of Direct NATO Involvement In Ukraine

Click to see the full-size image

Written by Drago Bosnic, independent geopolitical and military analyst

On February 26, French President Emmanuel Macron refused to rule out sending ground troops to Ukraine. Although he admitted there’s no consensus about this within NATO, Macron insisted that “nothing should be excluded” and that “we will do everything that we can to make sure that Russia does not prevail”. The next day, French Prime Minister Gabriel Attal reiterated his message, saying that “nothing can be ruled out in a war”. Just like Macron, he conceded there’s no consensus on the matter, but also insisted that “we will do whatever it takes to ensure that Russia cannot win this war”. This leaves the obvious question, what exactly can the political West (much less France alone) do to “ensure” Moscow’s defeat in Ukraine?

Firstly, a clear-cut coalition would have to be formed. NATO cannot collectively get involved in Ukraine due to the simple fact that the Neo-Nazi junta is not an official member. Invoking Article 4 or Article 5 would require an external enemy threatening one or multiple NATO member states. And even in such an eventuality, all members would need to agree to collective defense. How likely are countries such as Portugal, Spain or Italy to enter a direct confrontation with a global superpower such as Russia, even in the case that Moscow decided to intervene in NATO member states such as Estonia or Latvia? To say nothing of such a possibility when it comes to the Kiev regime. Helping such a corrupt and even terrorist entity is not very appealing.

Secondly, even if such a coalition were to be formed, it would almost certainly involve pathologically Russophobic countries such as the United Kingdom, Poland and the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia Lithuania). This would effectively divide NATO into tier members, depending on who’s in direct war with Russia and who’s not. The United States couldn’t get involved directly, as this would push the world closer to thermonuclear annihilation, meaning that Washington DC would be largely limited to what it’s already doing in Ukraine – logistics, ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance), covert ops and indirect support in general. This still leaves the obvious elephant in the room – who would do the actual fighting with Russian troops?

It’s quite clear that the Neo-Nazi junta would need to provide the bulk of the troops. The only problem is that’s exactly what they’ve been doing for the last two years and it hasn’t been going very well, particularly in recent weeks. The best NATO weapons and equipment have been obliterated by the Russian military in mere days. And while it’s operated by the Kiev regime forces (officially, at least), there’s no evidence that NATO soldiers would do any better, on the contrary even. Several Western countries, including the US and UK, have already deployed black ops troops disguised as volunteers or mercenaries. The Russian military reportedly even captured Polish and German personnel deployed to support large-scale operations involving NATO-sourced armor.

In addition, Western personnel are also widely believed to be operating other more complex assets such as the “Patriot” SAM (surface-to-air missile) system and similar air defenses that the Neo-Nazi junta forces simply haven’t had the time to master. The same can be said of other weapon systems such as the M270 MLRS (multiple, launch rocket system) and its wheeled version, the HIMARS. This alone makes NATO personnel a primary target for the Russian military, as evidenced by the January 16 strike that obliterated at least 60 French mercenaries in Kharkov. Russian sources reported that these were “highly trained specialists working on weapon systems too complex for average conscripts”. This could partially explain Macron’s rather emotional reaction.

Another strong possibility is that Paris wants revenge for losing its African (neo)colonies, particularly Niger, which jeopardizes its exploitation of Nigerien uranium and other important resources. The former is extremely important to France, as it’s still the world’s second-largest operator of nuclear power plants (56 in total). Having to pay full price for African uranium is rather “inconvenient” for Paris, which is why it kept countries like Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso in a (neo)colonial grip for well over half a century after officially granting them “independence”. After the Russian military, particularly the “Wagner” PMC (private military company) ended this, France was forced to look for alternatives, as upwards of 70% of its energy needs are covered by nuclear power plants.

Still, Macron’s energy issues are certainly not the reason for Europe to go to war with a military superpower such as Russia and the vast majority of European Union leaders have communicated that very clearly. In addition, even if a potential direct conflict with Russia were to unfold without the usage of weapons of mass destruction, a field entirely dominated by Moscow anyway, the political West does not have conventional superiority, despite all the reverie that it does. The Russian military would almost certainly not send millions of soldiers to take territory in Poland or other countries that would be involved in a potential intervention in western Ukraine. Instead, it would launch hundreds of long-range cruise, ballistic and hypersonic missiles at military targets.

This would only be the initial reaction and it would certainly progress to include other strategically important assets in all participant countries, in particular their energy systems, industrial facilities and generally anything with the so-called dual-use potential (meaning that it can be used for military purposes). In other words, Moscow would lay waste to any and all targets it deems militarily important, setting back the economies of targeted countries by decades. No sane leader of an independent (or at least partially independent) country would want that. And Europe doesn’t really have a way of responding without escalating the conflict into a thermonuclear exchange, one that it would most certainly lose, as it can’t even maintain its strategic arsenal in peacetime.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

Support SouthFront

SouthFront

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
13 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Yu are

don’t be a p… and launch those nukes!!!!!!!!!!

hash
hashed
hgg the second

ukra nazis have to be eliminated asap

hash
hashed
CEO of Yapping

“a british media report says a senior european defense official has acknowledged that “western special forces” are unofficially present in ukraine, despite us-led nato’s claims of having no such plans to put combat troops on the ground.”

people forgot that there are western soldiers in ukraine right now – not including the mercenaries.

hash
hashed
BunkerDwellers

lloyd austin is still making cgi appearances? all of these ‘enlightened’ faeries always treating their diseases and bodies the wrong way. the one thing they can never muster is a little self control.

Clyde

an entirely silly conversation. peer-to-peer warfare like 1936-45 cannot occur. the machines that were paraded in the cold war were part of a big charade to keep the militarized economies created in that period rolling along. the lifespan in combat of all of these weapon systems in a hot war is hours to days.

hash
hashed
Clyde

the us could not handle the fighting in “south vietnam”, even from the early sixties when their adversary was equipped only with small arms seized from the us puppet forces and the us was deploying bombers, attack aircraft, helicopters and heavy artillery. they haven’t tried to fight an army like the russians in eighty years, and in ww2 they had all they could handle in nw europe even with total air superiority and a logistical advantage over the germans that defies imagination.

Clyde

nato does whatever it thinks it can get away with, going back to the illegal assault on yugoslavia. they don’t need to invoke anything other than the maxim that might makes right. their actions are not dependent upon approval from portugal.

_Tom Sawyer_

we americans will cheer from behind! go europe, throw yourself into the meatgrinder! more profits for america!

hash
hashed
Sorin

macron is an idiot, gerontologist ,who licks a very old woman’s pussy. but, i think he is still homosexual, like the prime minister of france. he probably snorts cocaine like zelenski. he is a lunatic, unbalanced, who is led by puppeteers, this is what he was ordered to declare, this is what he declared. the idiot does not realize that france would be the first to be crushed because it is a (small) nuclear power.

hash
hashed
Sorin

i am sure that the russians took this possibility into account long ago, just as they took into account the measures that will be taken against them if they start the special operation. so they will not be unprepared.

hash
hashed
Macron the brave

perhaps russia can find a suitable rail road car for the french surrender.

hash
hashed
Guy

macron didn’t say this for no reason, his masters told him to say it so they could watch the reaction.

hash
hashed
Christopher

a certain minor religion that controls the us think this is a price worth paying in order to gain control when all the smoke clears. oy vey.

hash
hashed
13
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x