https://antiimperialistnews.substack.com/p/deploying-troops-into-ukraine-would
Yet member states are putting forward this possibility
May 27, 2024

It’s just another day of mixed messages about whether the lunatics in charge really want to start World War III. Trying to decipher this is mentally draining and I suspect that is the point. I suspect they want to keep the public confused and fearful as much as they do Putin. Fearful people are easier to control.

It’s hard to know exactly what is a bluff and what is for real, but it’s now being reported that if Ukraine faces a sudden collapse, certain NATO member states will send troops to Ukraine, presumably to fight Russia. Even if it were just to train Ukrainians, those foreign troops would become Russian targets.

The fact this is even being talked about suggests a Ukrainian collapse could come at any moment. Whether this is based on specific information or they’re just mooting the possibility, I’m not sure.

One thing is clear, Ukraine’s neighbours don’t want Russian troops amassing on their borders and are suggesting taking matters into their own hands. If their fears of imminent Russian victory are founded, it’s confirmation you’ve been lied to about Ukrainian successes. If their fears are unfounded, this is just needless scaremongering. Either way, we’re being manipulated.

Apparently, the Baltic states are angry that Berlin is seeing sense and refusing to allow NATO weapons to be used on Russian territory, something both David Cameron and Jens Stoltenberg are in favour of. Poland had rejected the idea, but now says it’s not going to wait for the collapse of Ukraine and will send troops over the border before this happens. This leaves us with a major dilemma: if NATO members join the fight, do we trigger Article 5? Do we tell them that if they don’t act with NATO approval, they’re on their own?

There are huge divisions emerging within NATO. Slovakian prime minister Robert Fico said “the Ukraine strategy of the West has completely failed,” but his country would have nothing to do with the deployment of troops to Ukraine.

Italian deputy PM Matteo Salvini is furious with Jens Stoltenberg’s suggestion that NATO weapons should be allowed to target Russian soil and has called on him to retract those worlds or resign. Salvini said:

“I don't want to leave my children in the third world war at the gates... Stoltenberg should either recant or apologise or resign.”

I don’t think it’s occurred to the some of the geniuses in NATO that if Ukraine strikes Russia with our weapons, they won’t be retaliating on Ukrainian soil, they’ll be striking ours - and they have the capability to strike anywhere in Europe within 20 minutes with ICBMs or 90 minutes with conventional missiles. It’s worth emphasising a recent UK report shows we have no defence capability to stop Russian missiles.

Worryingly, we’re told Kyiv’s flawed air defences are “way, way better” than London’s and Russia has precision missiles that could hit the front door of 10 Downing Street.

Is this starting to feel real yet? Escalating with Russia does not mean you are containing the war in Ukraine, it means you are doing the opposite. You know those awful stories you see of stray Russian rockets flattening markets in Ukraine? How would you like that to be your town? How would you like your local power station to be taken out? How would you like to sit in the dark, praying this thing doesn’t go nuclear? Because hotheadedness could lead to the exact thing you want to prevent.

Sweden has just announced it will allow Swedish weapons to strike targets inside Russia, such as its long-range, precision Archer artillery. Part of the reason for US hesitation to do the same is that Ukraine keeps defying its advice, for example by launching drone attacks on Russian oil refineries. The US clearly does not want its own oil refineries to be attacked in retaliation.

Lack of supplies has forced Ukraine to use “ageing and inadequate weaponry”, but the latest aid package would appear to address this. However, the package is just enough to maintain defensive operations until the end of the year. It is not enough to mount any counter-offensives.

Antony Blinken said the package contains “artillery rounds, Javelin and TOW missiles, ammunition for High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS), demolitions munitions, anti-armour mines, tactical vehicles, and body armour, chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear protective equipment.” But that’s just not enough to meet Ukraine’s needs.

An increasingly frustrated Zelensky recently accused NATO of “being afraid of Russia losing the war”, and only wanting Ukraine “to win in such a way that Russia does not lose.” Ukrainian generals and politicians have been making comments such as: “The West is scared of Russia.”

“It seems to me that some have already agreed to the partition of Ukraine," lamented Oleksandr Merezhko, chairman of Ukraine’s Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee. I hope he’s right because it’s the most realistic chance for a stable and lasting peace.

France is pushing for a self-reliant Europe because it knows the US cannot be relied upon to come to Europe’s rescue. This is perfectly sensible as long as we’re doing this for defensive purposes and Macron loses any idea of sending his troops into Ukraine.

Macron is reportedly upset that Germany is turning to the US to help develop the European Sky Shield Initiative (a continent-wide iron dome). Germany points out the European defence industry is not ready to develop the system as quickly as it’s needed, but the need is only urgent if we’re taking the fight to Russia.

We are told the direction of the war will only change when Russia “feels the consequences of the war at home” which is an admission the war is going in the wrong direction.

We might occasionally see a story such as a Russian T-90 tank being taken out by a drone from Ukraine's 47th Separate Mechanised Brigade, but this is just propaganda. Minor successes have been amplified to give the public false hope the NATO strategy could yet turn things around. A slowing down of Russia’s rapid advance has been celebrated as some sort of victory rather than a delay of the inevitable. However, the optimism of the propaganda is waning and being replaced with realism.

The problem is people who’ve been subjected to one of the biggest and most successful propaganda efforts in history don’t want to hear they’ve been lied to about something they’re so emotionally invested in.

When someone wants something to be true so badly, it can be hard to convince them it’s false. Even when the liars themselves are starting to come clean, some choose to remain in denial. You can quote a mainstream news report word for word and still be accused of sharing Putin propaganda. The NATO propagandists have broken people’s brains.

The reality is Ukraine has lost half of its power grid and a third of its economy with about half a million men either dead or out of action. Ukrainian soldiers openly admit their drones are not enough to turn the tide of battle, given Russia has become effective at jamming them. They claim the conflict could last years or even decades.

While I doubt Ukraine could keep up the fight for more than a year or two at most, if they somehow can, it will be music to NATO’s ears. NATO would love nothing more than to trap Russia in a forever war. Some claim neither side has the ability to deliver a knockout blow and if that were close to being true, it would destroy the idea of Russia marching through Europe.

It has taken Russia two years and three months to capture 18% of Ukraine and it still does not have air superiority. The idea of Russia just rampaging through other countries is implausible. If we take one example, Finland, it has vast bunkers capable of housing almost everyone in the country with enough supplies to last them for years. These bunkers are so vast, they are used as soft plays and restaurants so the public is familiar with them and knows where to go if war starts. Finland has over a million troops and reservists and is protected by a treacherous mountain range that gives it a reputation of being the hardest country in the world to invade.

You could say some Baltic states might be more vulnerable, but not really. You’re talking about tough people with modern militaries who would not be a pushover for anyone.

There is talk of NATO members Latvia or Lithuania being next on Putin’s list, but experts argue it would take Putin 3-8 years to prepare for such an attack, which would also give NATO 3-8 years to prepare. In other words, it would be idiotic for Putin to even try.

Look at it like this: George Bush jr initially planned to not just take Iraq and Afghanistan but a swathe of countries across the Middle East, including Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan. However, he was forced to reconsider when faced with the realities on the battlefield. In the 21 years since, it has only got harder to take on smaller countries. Even asymmetric wars are difficult to win, let alone wars between superpowers.

Then there’s the fact mobilisation is costing Putin popularity in Russia. If he endlessly mobilises his population, his public support could plummet. It’s just not realistic that he is going to plough through Europe like a second Hitler. Even if he wanted to, he would find it almost impossible, and he would have little to gain and plenty to lose. If Putin has guarantees of no more NATO expansion and Ukrainian neutrality, he will be incentivised to stop the fighting.

If NATO is reluctant to negotiate, one option for Putin would be escalate to de-escalate, with smaller attacks that would force NATO to back down or start World War III. This is all the more reason to get to the negotiation table now. Either you want to risk nuclear annihilation for the Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine or you think that makes no sense. I know which camp I’m in.