By Nikola Mikovic
“If you want peace, prepare for war,” appears to be the European Union’s approach regarding a potential escalation of the Ukraine conflict. Several EU and NATO members have already started taking measures that can be interpreted as preparation for a direct military confrontation with Russia. But how likely is such an outcome?
Following recent Russian military’s gains in the contested Donbas region in eastern Ukraine, including the capture of the town of Avdiivka – one of the most fortified settlements in the war-torn nation – fears began to rise in the West about a potential fall of Ukraine. Now that Russia holds the upper hand and the conflict continues evolving into a grinding war of attrition, Western leaders seem to have started developing strategies for the worst-case scenario.
“Frankly, if Ukraine falls, I really believe that NATO will be in a fight with Russia”, Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin said on February 29, while for Ukrainian Foreign Minister, Dmytro Kuleba, “the era of peace in Europe is over.”
In order to prevent Ukraine’s defeat, the West would have to significantly increase military aid to the Eastern European nation. Since it is still unclear when and if the United States, as Kyiv’s biggest donor, will continue arming Ukraine, it is Europe that is expected to find a way to fill the gap and provide large amounts of weapons to the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
But under the current circumstances, that could be easier said than done. Unlike Russia, which has started mobilizing its economy for war back in September 2022, the West is yet to make such a move. The EU plans to encourage member states to buy more weapons together from European companies, and to help such firms increase production capacity. The problem, however, is that shifting the European arms industry to war economy mode might take some time. Meanwhile, Russia will likely capture more territory in Ukraine, as Kyiv continues facing ammunition and manpower shortages.
To this day, Ukrainian authorities do not seem to have a clear mobilization strategy, as Kyiv continues struggling to draft up to 500,000 more men. The Eastern European country has a hard time preserving the status quo on the ground, and without new troops it is very unlikely to be in a position to launch a new offensive anytime soon, if at all.
Quite aware of that, Kyiv’s Western partners are trying to find a way to help the Ukrainian military improve its positions. A “war economy mode” in Europe would undoubtedly increase production of weapons (especially artillery shells), which is what Ukraine – faced with Russian attempts to break through its 1,000km-long (620-mile) front lines – desperately needs. More importantly, Western troops in Ukraine could also play a big role in Kyiv’s war efforts.
After French President Emmanuel Macron said that Western troop deployments to Ukraine should “not be ruled out”, several NATO members have openly supported the idea. For instance, Canadian Defense Minister Bill Blair stressed that Ottawa is ready to send a limited number of military personnel to Ukraine, “but only to train Ukrainian soldiers and not for participation in hostilities.” Moreover, the Dutch Chief of Defense, General Onno Eichelsheim, pointed out that if Western militaries were to go to Ukraine, “it would have to be in a coalition of 10-15 countries.”
Besides France, Canada, and The Netherlands, Baltic states of Estonia and Lithuania have also hinted that they might be willing to send troops to Ukraine. But many other NATO members seem to have taken Russian President Vladimir Putin’s nuclear threats seriously, which is why, at least at this point, there is no consensus among NATO countries about a potential troop deployment to the war-torn nation.
But how would Moscow react if some NATO members eventually decide to send their forces to Ukraine?
Ukraine would certainly not be the only theater of war where Russian and Western troops operate independently of each other. In Syria, despite Russian military presence, the United States and Turkey have established a de facto control over significant portions of the Middle Eastern nation. Despite having opposed views on the future of Syria, their forces on the ground never engaged in a direct large-scale confrontation.
More importantly, in May 2018, Wagner fighters reportedly assaulted a US and Syrian Democratic Forces position in Syria’s oil-rich Deir ez-Zor province, but they were later hammered by the American artillery, airstrikes, helicopters and even an AC-130 gunship. The Kremlin never reacted. Therefore, it is quite questionable if Russian political leadership – still extremely hesitant about bombing the so-called decision-making centers in Kyiv (in reality, empty administrative buildings) – would be willing to raise the stakes and strike Western forces’ positions in Ukraine.
On the other hand, if the Kremlin decides to use its Syrian strategy, and turn a blind eye to a potential Western troop deployment to Ukraine, it would represent yet another signal that Russia does not have any red lines. Although pro-Kremlin propaganda would portray such a move as Putin’s alleged desire to prevent World War 3, Ukrainian and Western policy makers would interpret it as a sign of weakness.
As Poland’s Foreign Minister recently stressed, the initiative on a potential NATO troop deployment to the Eastern European country is about “Putin being afraid”. If such an approach proves to be fruitful, the West will almost certainly continue taking steps that could eventually lead to the Russian defeat in Ukraine.
Author: Nikola Mikovic – Journalist, researcher and analyst based in Serbia.
(The views expressed in this article belong only to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy or views of World Geostrategic Insights).
Image Source: AP