By Dhanuka Dickwella ( Photo credit https://www.ndtv.com)

“There’s no consensus today to send in an official, endorsed manner troops on the ground. But in terms of dynamics, nothing can be ruled out” French President Emmanuel Macron

Voltaire, Montesquieu, Condorcet, and Rousseau were some of the pioneer French philosophers in the Enlightenment era who advocated recognizing liberty, equality, and individual rights as fundamental to civilizations. Those conceptions have become the cornerstone of the modern global democratic structures. Marquis de Lafayette, named as “Hero of two worlds” was a larger-than-life Frenchman who fought alongside the Americans in their war of independence and ignited the French revolution that led to the drafting of the Declaration of the Rights of Man. The ordinary French women and men, through their collective actions, stormed the Bastille and gave birth to a constitutional system of democratic government. Those legendary characters were undoubtedly the forefathers of what we enjoy as a democracy today. Thus the French could boast that they invented democracy in its modern form. Against that backdrop, we can understand why French President Emmanuel Macron is adamant about forming a “Coalition of the Willing” to put boots on the ground in Ukraine to deter Russia once and for all. 

The French president’s remarks earned controversy, praise, rebukes, and push backs from both allies and rivals alike. Although the matter is enthusiastically discussed in a few European capitals we are yet to see whether the proposal could take off ground at some point or not. For now, Paris has deployed its diplomatic capital to garner support to form a broader coalition while keeping the topic actively afloat. There are powerful European states that openly oppose the very idea. It is fair to assume that forming such a coalition is sitting on the fence currently. In a union that is “ United in diversity”, political differences are commonplace especially when partaking in a conflict with a nuclear power irrespective as an auxiliary force or otherwise. However, the real question that gets to the heart of the matter is, whether Paris was serious about such a proposal and have they had given a thought to the possibility of being unable to walk their talk. Simply because walking back on an idea as significant as this will have serious consequences. There is absolutely no doubt that rising to one’s feet to guard their values is both a courageous act and a noble thing to do. But such bravado, unless matched with audacious action, could have damaging ramifications not just for Europe but for the whole world. 

Is it in the USA’s interest ?

Before exploring what such adverse effects are, we need to revisit the one fact the Americans keep reiterating in the Russia- Ukraine conflict: “ No US boots on the ground”. This summaries both the extent and the limitations the United States has concerning Ukraine. Whether a part of Ukraine or the whole of it is lost to Russia, no Americans will fight Moscow’s forces. One does not need divine wisdom to conclude that when the leader of the Western order as well as the real war machine of NATO, says “NO”, it means it. American leadership has a sacred duty to safeguard its homeland which has been safe from any external foes for two centuries. Americans will not risk its citizenry by allowing one of its junior partners or a coalition of them to call a nuclear bluff of a state that has the world’s largest nuclear arsenal. Especially in an election year where the stakes are high, the last thing the Biden administration is looking forward to is an unprecedented escalation in a theater less important to him compared to China. Besides, there is less unity among the Europeans for such an action at least for now.

What’s Paris after ?

But none of that seems to be a concern to the French President or the other leaders who are on board an auxiliary, non combative force. Why would France be supporting a risky proposal outright? As per Professor John Keiger the former research director of the Department of Politics and International Studies at Cambridge, what President Macron does is replaying the centuries-old game of “foreign policy for domestic purposes” in order to steamroll the Rassemblement National’s rise. Maybe it is true be not. Is there a risk for the rest of Europe if at all Kiev falls? There is no logic to expect a Domino effect to follow in the European continent in the event the eventual fall of Ukraine materializes. 

President Macron’s idea of standing up to President Putin seems two fold and not entirely limited to Ukraine.The immediate impact would be to change the western ambiguity in helping Ukraine for the fear of a Russian response. Paris believes that western troops could create a strategic ambiguity in the Russian mindsets. Secondly in the larger picture it is a suggestion of the democracies standing up to autocratic states and their leaders globally in the coming global order. There is merit in this idea in terms of safeguarding democratic order and deterring “might ‘ is the right”, concept. Although Russia may stop at the Dniester River, the revisionist leaders elsewhere will take a page from the Ukrainian playbook and could very well start intimidating the weaker neighbours. Look no further than the South Caucasus where the Azeri dictator is threatening democratic Armenia. The current global chaos is a culmination of the failure of the democratic world to stand up to dictatorships. They are already a couple of decades late in this.

Russian response.

Russian reaction to President Macron was swift, as anticipated full of threats and insults. In summary, it was “Don’t be Napoleon. We will nuke you”. The last time the French went to Russia, they did not come back in good shape. For that matter none of the Europeans who decided to invade Russia managed to emerge on top. History might repeat itself unless the United States puts its weight behind a potential conflict although this is technically not attacking Russia nor invading its lands. Russia was clear at the dawn of the invasion that it would react to anyone trying to intervene on behalf of Ukraine. But Russian deterrence eventually faded. Russia has a blurry and flexible redline. In fact, no one cares much about them since Russians do practically nothing when each redline is crossed. Ukrainians have ticked everything in the box starting from sinking Moskva to unleashing a relentless attack on Crimea to cross-border incursions into Russia proper to destroying oil and gas fields to the Kerch bridge. To add to the injury, Ukrainians even attacked the Kremlin itself. Recognizing the Russian weakness, the West was encouraged to go from Javelins to Patriots. The F16s could very well be on their way thanks to Russia’s policy of barking without biting. Russian nuclear saber rattling has been up for a while and it sounds more hollow with each passing day. Will the Russians stick to the redline this time around or instead of nukes will they put up a vicious battle by deploying the deadly trio of Dmitry Peskov, Maria Zakharova and Minister Sergey Lavrov is yet to be found out. The only difference in these instances is that, if Russia decides to sit back and relax allowing the European armies to cross the Ukrainian border, they will face unimaginable challenges on several other fronts. Simply, the stakes are too high.

Let’s imagine for a minute that President Macron sends his troops along with a contingent of a coalition of the willing which will manage to deter the Russians. Moscow is dissuaded from taking any military action against the Western militaries. That very moment will give rise to a new precedent “Life of a NATO country soldier is the Rubicon line”. As a follow-up to this, the Western forces will implement a no-fly zone wherever their auxiliary forces are stationed. 

Applying the same precedent this coalition of willing with the leadership of France could send forces to Armenia, Georgia, and Moldova which are under heavy Russian military and Political pressure. When the Russians have not killed such a force in an active war zone, there is no reason or logic they could be targeted in a non-conflict zone. The moment this weakness is demonstrated by Russians, they will not be able to have any control over the central Asian states or wherever they have a military presence globally. New realities of this nature will be duly exploited by the United States. Russia will face a strategic defeat by losing any deterrence capacity. Without firing a bullet, the Western nations will be able to reverse the Russian influence in every single space. Given the magnitude of the risk, Russia will have no choice but to fight the soldiers of NATO countries the moment they step foot in Ukraine. The recent Russian missile attack meters away from the Greek prime minister could be construed as Russia’s willingness to act decisively. A message sent in advance.

What ifs 

If the Russians attack the European force in Ukraine and bring mortal harm to them, then what? Has the coalition of the willing thought about that? Is there any grounds to enact NATO’s Article 5? Let’s look at NATO’s article 5 as well as Article 6 which specifically mentions the territories. .

Article 5

“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith,”

Article 6

“on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France , on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer“

Although Ukraine is very much on the European continent it is not a territory of any of the parties ( NATO states) which makes invoking article 5 an invalid argument. Besides Germany and Italy have ruled out taking part in a direct role in Ukraine. Without the support of those two powers, a European war is already lost. Will the United States prefer to get dragged into a conflict with their old nemesis that they made sure to avoid for decades ? Don’t they have a moral responsibility to act if their partners get annihilated? In the face of such deaths, doing nothing, will not only harm their individual prestige but damage NATO’s deterrence completely. A cost too high to pay which could only be averted by preempting the idea.

What if this proposal becomes just a noise ? Not walking the talk is also equally a bad act. It will affirm the Western disunity as well as show the weakness of the West. Russia will see it as  cowardice and exploit the outcome without a doubt. It will encourage President Putin to be more assertive and stir a conflict in Moldova eventually.

The current phase of the conflict has presented a Pandora’s box that might not have any pretty fates once opened. If the Europeans send the armies and the Russians back down, it will become a Western victory that would create the first steps for a final solution to the conflict which will  favour the Ukrainians. If President Macron does not walk the talk, Russians will interpret that the Europeans are just blabbering for a domestic audience. The Kremlin would feel emboldened to wage the war all the way up to Trandensitia while trying to explore the possibility of subjugating Moldova. If the Europeans send forces and the Russians call the bluff by mortally damaging the European military units, the world will plunge to an immediate crisis similar to the Cuban missile crisis. The genie is clearly out of the bottle now. As nations of the global south, we sincerely hope that cool heads prevail; no doomsday weapons will go off in the old continent or elsewhere and this senseless war will come to an end sooner than later.