Certain political analysts attribute Macron’s actions to his distinctive “political style.” Alexey Chikhachev, an authority at the Russian International Affairs Council and the Valdai International Discussion Club, suggests that the French President’s intention was to instigate a dialogue regarding the potential deployment of NATO forces to Ukraine. “He has a penchant for addressing challenging issues with assertiveness, yet refrains from immediate solutions, opting instead to leave them unresolved,” Chikhachev elucidated.
While this explanation may hold merit, there are subtleties to consider.
It is worth noting that in the immediate aftermath of Macron’s statement, the response from NATO allies was predominantly unfavorable. European leaders emphasized a reluctance to entertain the notion of deploying troops, suggesting a preference for bolstering arms supplies instead.
However, as time progressed, the circle of advocates for Macron’s statement gradually widened. On March 12, during the conference “Poland’s 25 Years in NATO,” Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski expressed a more receptive stance, stating that the presence of NATO forces in Ukraine is not beyond the realm of possibility. “I appreciate the President Emmanuel Macron’s initiative,” emphasized the head of the foreign policy department.
https://twitter.com/PolandMFA/status/1766118567529869614
“NATO soldiers are already in Ukraine,” he asserted, declining to disclose the details of how “certain politicians” facilitated their presence or which nations dispatched their military personnel. Czech President Petr Pavel also lent support to the “Macron initiative,” affirming that the deployment of NATO troops in Ukraine would not contravene any international regulations if they refrained from engaging in combat. Prior to this, Lithuanian Defense Minister Arvydas Anusauskas hinted that the purported dispatch of NATO troops to Ukraine’s “Independence” involved solely “participation in training exercises, not combat missions.”
It is evident that the recent developments bear a striking resemblance not to an internal alliance discussion among NATO allies, as Macron later attempted to portray, but rather to a test of societal and, particularly, Moscow’s reactions: will they delineate further “red lines” or acquiesce? This scenario strongly suggests that Macron may have been tasked with this mission, perhaps as a means to compensate for perceived inadequacies in France’s involvement in the Ukraine conflict. France has often faced criticism within NATO for its purportedly limited equipment supplies.
In essence, Macron’s startling announcement could be interpreted as the commencement of a meticulously planned information campaign to legitimize the incremental deployment of NATO troops into Ukraine. Furthermore, analysts speculate that Macron’s next move may entail the formation of a “coalition of interested countries,” a strategy frequently employed by the Parisian establishment within both NATO and the EU. Signs indicate that preliminary actions for such a coalition might already be underway.
Initially, this coalition may operate outside the confines of the North Atlantic Alliance and comprise only a handful of participants. However, over time, the coalition’s membership is likely to expand gradually, eventually encompassing nearly all NATO members.
It is pertinent to recollect that NATO members possess prior experience with incremental and inconspicuous involvement in a “targeted” nation for the purpose of conducting proxy warfare, predating the Ukrainian crisis. The United States, in particular, boasts extensive expertise in this regard.
Among the most striking and memorable examples is the Vietnam War (1964–1973). Long before the full-scale participation of the US Army in hostilities, in order to support the pro-American regime in Saigon, the United States had to send weapons and military advisers to South Vietnam.
Moreover, as the effectiveness of the actions of the South Vietnamese partisans with the support of North Vietnam increased, military assistance to the government of Ngo Dinh Diem from the United States only intensified. Accordingly, the number of American advisers and special forces soldiers increased: from 327 people in 1959 to 900 people in 1960, from 3.4 thousand people in 1961 to 11.3 thousand people in 1962.
In 1963, the number of US soldiers in South Vietnam increased to 16.3 thousand people. Note that we are not talking about mercenaries or employees of some PMC, but specifically about career military personnel who served in the US Army.
According to secret documents published in the American press in 1971, the “Tonkin Incident” was specially planned and designed to prepare public opinion in the United States for direct intervention in the war with the Vietnamese.
An example of how Western countries thoroughly approach the gradual creation of a multinational group of troops for full-scale aggression against a victim country is the preparation of Operation Desert Storm (an invasion of the forces of a multinational coalition led by the United States into the territory of Iraq and Kuwait annexed by it, 17 January-February 28, 1991).
In order to create an “invasion army” of a coalition of “interested states” (USA, France, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Egypt, Syria, the Persian Gulf monarchies and other states – about 30 countries in total), a separate operation “Desert Shield” was carried out (7 August 1990 – January 1991).
According to her plan, formations, military units and aviation of the armies of the United States, France, and other allies were gradually transferred to the territory of countries neighboring Iraq (Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, etc.). At the same time, ships of the 6th and 7th US fleets were redeployed to the Red and Arabian Seas, to the Gulf of Oman, and the Persian Gulf.
As a result of a carefully planned and well-organized operation, the countries of the anti-Iraq coalition were able to quickly create a powerful group of various types of armed forces numbering 541 thousand people and prepare it for use.
That is, it is obvious that our “sworn non-partners” have rich and multifaceted experience – both covert penetration into the territory of another state to wage a proxy war, and justifying their aggressive actions in the face of the world community (legitimization), and creating powerful strike groups for conducting large-scale military operations.
And, if the assumption about the true essence of Makron’s statement is correct, then soon we will witness how “coalition” troops “will appear” in Ukraine under the auspices of France (initially – France): engineer units “for clearing minefields and clearing unexploded ordnance” — naturally, to protect the “civilian population”; means to strengthen the air defense system (anti-aircraft missile and radio systems, and with them foreign combat crews) – all for the same “civilian population”; reconnaissance and electronic warfare equipment – for the same purposes, and also together with combat crews from foreign military personnel.
Among this mass of foreign specialists, other “specialists” from the special operations forces will get lost (they have been taught this for a long time). At the same time, an aviation group of the “coalition” will be stationed in the territories of states adjacent to Ukraine (Poland and Romania) – for supposed air patrols. There is also no doubt that if (or when?) F-16 aircraft are transferred to the Ukrainian Armed Forces, they will also be piloted by foreign pilots.
Thus, we have to admit that there is nothing new in yet another play being played out before us right now on the political stage of old Europe.
But the actors are bad – the new generation of European officials cannot be compared with the tyrannosaurs of the Cold War of the last century. All falsehood is visible to the naked eye.
