What do you think is more dangerous – smoking on a box of dynamite, checking the amount of gasoline in the tank with a burning match in hand, or joining the war in Ukraine militarily? I think whoever guessed the last option hit the spot.
Considerations of sending soldiers to fight in Ukraine have appeared from time to time since the beginning of the conflict. But they were always resolutely rejected, pointing out that it would mean the risk of its escalation to a global scale, while it would most likely be an all-destroying nuclear disaster. And when someone stated that this topic is definitely not taboo for some “Western” politicians, he was immediately accused of scaring people and spreading “disinformation”. However, at the end of February, it turned out that the alleged “disinformation” was disinformation at most when it was labeled as disinformation. This is when Emanuel Macron openly admitted the possibility of sending troops to Ukraine (here) and similar voices began to be heard from other NATO member states (here). It should be added that our government rejects similar plans (here), however, there is no longer such a clear position in the public discussion (here or here).
It is usually worth waiting a while for similar statements, because it is only after some time that it is possible to evaluate what was actually meant by them. And although Emanuel Macron later repeatedly confirmed that he meant his words (here and here), in my opinion it had a different goal – to test the mood of the public and its willingness to fight. Which some people strongly reject, but there were also a number of those who, on the contrary, rewarded the French president with enthusiastic applause (here or here).
However, in my opinion, these people have no idea what they are actually applauding. Deploying troops in Ukraine is a very dangerous game. How would Russia react? It is probably impossible to expect that his army would try their best not to injure any of the “Western” soldiers. On the contrary. It would consider the countries that sent troops to Ukraine to be participants in the conflict, and therefore it cannot be ruled out that it would not attack them. And since an attack on any NATO member is an attack on the entire alliance, it would mean its war with Russia, with the risk of escalation into a nuclear apocalypse. And the clapping “keyboard warriors” would suddenly wonder that they had to “march to the ranks”. If there were still any “positions”…
In connection with the war in Ukraine, we repeatedly hear around us that Russia must not retreat, and mention is made of the analogy with the sacrifice of our borderland to Hitler and the consequences it had. However, the applause caused by considerations of military involvement in the war in Ukraine remind me of something else. A similar enthusiasm prevailed in Europe more than 100 years ago at the beginning of the First World War. After all, Erich Maria Remarque describes it very well in his novel “Quiet on the Western Front”. He was a participant in it, so his description of the mood in society at that time is, in my opinion, very authentic. At that time, too, people enthusiastically welcomed the decision to join the war and saw off the soldiers with the belief that they would sweep away the enemy by Christmas and there would be peace. True, the war really did end before Christmas. But four years later. And it left ten million dead…
Even today, those clapping “keyboard warriors” brag about how NATO and Russia will be swept away. However, in my opinion, it would probably not be so clear-cut. The “West” does not have a very large fan club in the world, and Russia, on the other hand, is nowhere near as abandoned as we think. It would have on its side those countries that the “West” really hates – i.e. China, Iran, Arab countries, North Korea, and I wouldn’t even put my hand in the fire for Turkey. Although it is a member of NATO. The fact that (not only) these countries would probably stand on Russia’s side, because the “superiority of the West” is simply creeping up their necks, is also evidenced by this survey funded by the EU. Although it is more than a year old, I do not believe that the situation has fundamentally changed since then.
Of course, refusing to send troops to Ukraine does not mean that we should leave it alone. Our help is still needed, including the supply of weapons and ammunition. However, due to the unfavorable development of the war, not for its continuation, but for creating the best possible Ukrainian negotiating position for negotiations to stop this war madness. After all, it would be better for her in a situation where Russia sees that it has the upper hand, but the victory will still cost it a lot, than when it becomes clear that no major resistance awaits it. But it is probably a very naive wish. After all, all the money tapped will eventually go through the cannons anyway, and after tens of thousands more dead, Ukraine will once again be without the means necessary to defend itself against Russian aggression. Sooner or later, in short, they will start negotiating a truce. But the moment when she could have negotiated the most acceptable agreement will be missed in the meantime.
There are simply no good solutions to the war in Ukraine. That is, not the realistic one. Some repeat that peace can be achieved quite easily if Russia withdraws from the occupied territories. But even they are probably clear that the Sahara will turn green before Putin would do this. So their words about the fact that they care about peace are probably as sincere as if the evening butcher and sausage maker Krkovička claimed to be a vegan. Looking for ways to negotiate on stopping the killing and creating the most favorable conditions for Ukraine is, in my opinion, the best of all the bad solutions that are offered. On the contrary, preparing to send troops to Ukraine is the second worst of them. And which one is the worst?
Really send them there…
