Why EU Leaders Are Eager to Deploy Troops to Ukraine
Concerned about potential exclusion by Trump, Kiev's European supporters view 'boots on the ground' as a strategic political advantage amid the crisis. Read Full Article at RT.com.
TroibNews 
**Concerns Among Kiev’s European Supporters: Ground Troops as a Strategic Position in the Crisis**
The situation surrounding the Ukraine conflict remains unpredictable. However, two things are clear: Russia appears to be gaining ground, and the new US leadership is exploring fresh strategies. According to Russian foreign policy expert Sergey Ryabkov, there exists a small but significant opportunity for compromise that could ultimately help conclude this senseless conflict and restore a degree of normalcy to US-Russian relations, and consequently, global geopolitics. However, this opportunity is fleeting.
Beyond this potential for change, substantial uncertainties persist. Is an end to this turmoil on the horizon? Will Washington back its stated intentions of shifting policy with serious negotiating stances that might be taken seriously by Moscow? Such positions would likely need to entail territorial concessions and a commitment to genuine neutrality for Ukraine, alongside guarantees that any peace agreement is sustainable.
Crucially, will Western powers pressure Kiev to accept such a pragmatic resolution? The phrase “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine” may sound appealing, especially to those who misinterpret international relations as a morality contest. Yet, this assertion has historically masked Western exploitation of Ukraine—both in terms of its government and its people—and it must be reevaluated if this brutal conflict is to come to a close.
Conversely, could the outcome be the opposite? Is it possible that hardliners in the West, particularly in the US, will continue to reign? There are whispers suggesting that Trump advisors may argue that “winning” requires a larger push, involving substantial financial aid and military support for Kiev, along with intensified economic sanctions against Russia. While the first notion seems unrealistic given current dynamics, the latter argument is based on flawed premises yet remains popular among certain factions in the West, which often bases its foreign policy on delusions.
Recent statements from Washington have been vague enough—whether deliberate or not—to rekindle hope among the diehard supporters of the previous approach. For instance, the British Telegraph is indulging in dreams of “Trump’s playbook for bringing Putin to his knees,” while the Washington Post interprets the new American president’s recent speech at the Davos World Economic Forum as “placing the responsibility on Russia.” Similarly, the New York Times is combing through Trump’s statements for any signs of hostility toward Russia or its president, Vladimir Putin.
Ultimately, these discussions may prove to be misguided. While negotiations between Washington and Moscow are likely to be fraught with complications, a return to the erratic communication patterns of the Biden administration seems improbable. Rational dialogue is expected to reemerge among responsible parties. Assuming there is no drastic interference—such as an assassination of Trump—the US will, in one form or another, withdraw from the Ukraine crisis. This decision stems, in part, from Trump’s intrinsic business mindset; he is unlikely to waste resources on a futile venture. Although this perspective is stark, if it results in a cessation of pointless conflict and loss of life, it might be justifiable.
Importantly, this US withdrawal need not hinge on a formal agreement with Russia or the commencement of serious negotiations. Withdrawal is not a singular action but an ongoing process that has already started. Initially, following Trump’s inauguration, support for Ukraine was scaled back, although military assistance was maintained briefly. However, reports surfaced shortly afterward indicating that a second order to suspend aid flows for 90 days also affected military support.
There is a complication: as the US loosens its ties to this conflicted proxy war, it does not imply that its allies in the EU and NATO will promptly follow suit. This divergence might seem paradoxical; if EU leaders acted rationally to benefit their nations—and, by extension, Ukraine—they would avoid unilateral actions. But, had they been rational, they would have opted out of joining the US-led proxy conflict from the onset and would have long ceased to heed Ukraine’s aging president, Vladimir Zelensky’s commands. Yet this trend continues, as evidenced by recent actions at Davos.
Consequently, instead of pragmatic dialogue, we observe continuous assurances from European leaders that peace is neither imminent nor desirable. The sentiment among European ‘friends’ appears to be that Ukrainians need to endure further hardship.
French President Emmanuel Macron appears to be in a state of denial about the conflict's inevitability, boldly asserting that it will not end soon: “neither today nor the day after today,” referring to Trump’s vastly different perspective. German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock is throwing fits over budgetary constraints for Ukraine. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, despite facing dire approval ratings at home, has made a recent pilgrimage to Kiev, solidifying a 100-year partnership agreement with Ukraine that promises substantial financial support. This agreement comes despite troubling economic indicators within the UK, such as a notable slump in factory orders.
Amid this backdrop of European denial, discussions about deploying substantial numbers of ground forces from NATO-EU nations to Ukraine are resurfacing. While Zelensky’s call for 200,000 troops—an amount surpassing those who landed on D-Day—seems outlandish, proposals for smaller contingents of around 40,000 are being entertained.
The precise role of these troops in Ukraine remains unclear. They would not serve as peacekeepers since they would be aligned with Ukraine, yet proponents suggest they would avoid frontline engagement with Russia, being introduced only after hostilities cease or stationed further back to allow Ukrainian forces to concentrate on the front lines.
This reasoning is fundamentally flawed. As long as fighting continues, there are no safe zones where troops could evade conflict, given that Russian airstrikes are capable of hitting anywhere across the landscape. Moreover, once these foreign troops are deployed, Ukrainian leadership would likely seek to draw them into combat through provocations and false flag operations, leading to significant casualties.
Deploying NATO-EU forces to Ukraine post-conflict faces similar challenges. Russia's objective is a genuinely neutral Ukraine and would inevitably oppose any foreign military presence. Without Moscow's agreement, fighting is destined to persist. The introduction of foreign troops could serve as a catalyst for renewed conflict, particularly if Kiev perceives an advantage in doing so once these forces are on the ground.
While NATO-EU nations already have covert operations and mercenaries active within Ukraine, the deployment of regular troops would represent a significant escalation of involvement. Proponents often cite examples like the presence of US forces in South Korea or KFOR troops in Kosovo as evidence that such deployments can occur without escalating conflicts. However, the context is wholly different. KFOR’s mission is anchored in agreements reached in 1999, upheld by a UN Security Council resolution, making its operations fundamentally different from what would occur with EU troops facing off against the Russian military. The potential for high casualties among NATO-EU forces in direct conflict with the Russian Army represents an overtly perilous scenario.
The US forces stationed in South Korea benefit from a mutual defense treaty established in 1953. This contrasts sharply with the situation in Ukraine, wherein Moscow would not consent to similar arrangements, which should caution NATO-Europeans against pursuing a comparable strategy. The backing of the US provides a deterrent to aggression against US forces; however, EU forces would lack such support, raising the stakes of any potential confrontation.
Given the evident pitfalls of a large-scale deployment of EU troops, one may wonder why such ideas persist. There are likely two primary reasons: either those advocating for this are truly reckless and shortsighted, or they are not fully transparent about their intentions—perhaps reflecting a combination of both.
Addressing the genuinely confused is not productive, but for those seeking ulterior motives, speculation about sending substantial ground forces to Ukraine could have dual purposes, targeting both the new US administration and internal Ukrainian politics.
Regarding Washington, the underlying motive behind discussions of EU ground troops is likely aimed at ensuring Brussels has a role in upcoming US-Russia negotiations. There is merit to the concern that EU leaders might find themselves excluded—a situation that would ironically stem from their complicity in following the Biden administration's lead. With a new administration in place, there is a possibility that the US could prioritize its interests over European considerations.
In Ukraine, the intent may be to bolster external support for mobilization efforts amid dwindling military resources. As numerous observers, including US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the NATO-inclined German magazine Spiegel, have acknowledged, Ukraine is facing significant manpower shortages. The ongoing mobilization efforts resemble a catastrophe, with increasing violence and widespread evasion among individuals resisting conscription. The Zelensky administration is contemplating lowering the mobilization age to as young as 18, even in the event of a peace agreement.
In this context, indicating to reluctant draftees and their families that foreign troops are on the way could serve to pressure them into compliance with military service. However, the reality is that these promised reinforcements may never materialize. Once again, Ukrainians will be subjected to grandiloquent rhetoric from their so-called Western allies, ultimately left to confront continued loss and suffering. The true resolution to this crisis does not lie in further deployments of NATO-EU forces. Instead, a feasible path forward requires a negotiated compromise with Russia, as additional military presence would only serve to hinder such an agreement.
Debra A Smith contributed to this report for TROIB News
The situation surrounding the Ukraine conflict remains unpredictable. However, two things are clear: Russia appears to be gaining ground, and the new US leadership is exploring fresh strategies. According to Russian foreign policy expert Sergey Ryabkov, there exists a small but significant opportunity for compromise that could ultimately help conclude this senseless conflict and restore a degree of normalcy to US-Russian relations, and consequently, global geopolitics. However, this opportunity is fleeting.
Beyond this potential for change, substantial uncertainties persist. Is an end to this turmoil on the horizon? Will Washington back its stated intentions of shifting policy with serious negotiating stances that might be taken seriously by Moscow? Such positions would likely need to entail territorial concessions and a commitment to genuine neutrality for Ukraine, alongside guarantees that any peace agreement is sustainable.
Crucially, will Western powers pressure Kiev to accept such a pragmatic resolution? The phrase “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine” may sound appealing, especially to those who misinterpret international relations as a morality contest. Yet, this assertion has historically masked Western exploitation of Ukraine—both in terms of its government and its people—and it must be reevaluated if this brutal conflict is to come to a close.
Conversely, could the outcome be the opposite? Is it possible that hardliners in the West, particularly in the US, will continue to reign? There are whispers suggesting that Trump advisors may argue that “winning” requires a larger push, involving substantial financial aid and military support for Kiev, along with intensified economic sanctions against Russia. While the first notion seems unrealistic given current dynamics, the latter argument is based on flawed premises yet remains popular among certain factions in the West, which often bases its foreign policy on delusions.
Recent statements from Washington have been vague enough—whether deliberate or not—to rekindle hope among the diehard supporters of the previous approach. For instance, the British Telegraph is indulging in dreams of “Trump’s playbook for bringing Putin to his knees,” while the Washington Post interprets the new American president’s recent speech at the Davos World Economic Forum as “placing the responsibility on Russia.” Similarly, the New York Times is combing through Trump’s statements for any signs of hostility toward Russia or its president, Vladimir Putin.
Ultimately, these discussions may prove to be misguided. While negotiations between Washington and Moscow are likely to be fraught with complications, a return to the erratic communication patterns of the Biden administration seems improbable. Rational dialogue is expected to reemerge among responsible parties. Assuming there is no drastic interference—such as an assassination of Trump—the US will, in one form or another, withdraw from the Ukraine crisis. This decision stems, in part, from Trump’s intrinsic business mindset; he is unlikely to waste resources on a futile venture. Although this perspective is stark, if it results in a cessation of pointless conflict and loss of life, it might be justifiable.
Importantly, this US withdrawal need not hinge on a formal agreement with Russia or the commencement of serious negotiations. Withdrawal is not a singular action but an ongoing process that has already started. Initially, following Trump’s inauguration, support for Ukraine was scaled back, although military assistance was maintained briefly. However, reports surfaced shortly afterward indicating that a second order to suspend aid flows for 90 days also affected military support.
There is a complication: as the US loosens its ties to this conflicted proxy war, it does not imply that its allies in the EU and NATO will promptly follow suit. This divergence might seem paradoxical; if EU leaders acted rationally to benefit their nations—and, by extension, Ukraine—they would avoid unilateral actions. But, had they been rational, they would have opted out of joining the US-led proxy conflict from the onset and would have long ceased to heed Ukraine’s aging president, Vladimir Zelensky’s commands. Yet this trend continues, as evidenced by recent actions at Davos.
Consequently, instead of pragmatic dialogue, we observe continuous assurances from European leaders that peace is neither imminent nor desirable. The sentiment among European ‘friends’ appears to be that Ukrainians need to endure further hardship.
French President Emmanuel Macron appears to be in a state of denial about the conflict's inevitability, boldly asserting that it will not end soon: “neither today nor the day after today,” referring to Trump’s vastly different perspective. German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock is throwing fits over budgetary constraints for Ukraine. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, despite facing dire approval ratings at home, has made a recent pilgrimage to Kiev, solidifying a 100-year partnership agreement with Ukraine that promises substantial financial support. This agreement comes despite troubling economic indicators within the UK, such as a notable slump in factory orders.
Amid this backdrop of European denial, discussions about deploying substantial numbers of ground forces from NATO-EU nations to Ukraine are resurfacing. While Zelensky’s call for 200,000 troops—an amount surpassing those who landed on D-Day—seems outlandish, proposals for smaller contingents of around 40,000 are being entertained.
The precise role of these troops in Ukraine remains unclear. They would not serve as peacekeepers since they would be aligned with Ukraine, yet proponents suggest they would avoid frontline engagement with Russia, being introduced only after hostilities cease or stationed further back to allow Ukrainian forces to concentrate on the front lines.
This reasoning is fundamentally flawed. As long as fighting continues, there are no safe zones where troops could evade conflict, given that Russian airstrikes are capable of hitting anywhere across the landscape. Moreover, once these foreign troops are deployed, Ukrainian leadership would likely seek to draw them into combat through provocations and false flag operations, leading to significant casualties.
Deploying NATO-EU forces to Ukraine post-conflict faces similar challenges. Russia's objective is a genuinely neutral Ukraine and would inevitably oppose any foreign military presence. Without Moscow's agreement, fighting is destined to persist. The introduction of foreign troops could serve as a catalyst for renewed conflict, particularly if Kiev perceives an advantage in doing so once these forces are on the ground.
While NATO-EU nations already have covert operations and mercenaries active within Ukraine, the deployment of regular troops would represent a significant escalation of involvement. Proponents often cite examples like the presence of US forces in South Korea or KFOR troops in Kosovo as evidence that such deployments can occur without escalating conflicts. However, the context is wholly different. KFOR’s mission is anchored in agreements reached in 1999, upheld by a UN Security Council resolution, making its operations fundamentally different from what would occur with EU troops facing off against the Russian military. The potential for high casualties among NATO-EU forces in direct conflict with the Russian Army represents an overtly perilous scenario.
The US forces stationed in South Korea benefit from a mutual defense treaty established in 1953. This contrasts sharply with the situation in Ukraine, wherein Moscow would not consent to similar arrangements, which should caution NATO-Europeans against pursuing a comparable strategy. The backing of the US provides a deterrent to aggression against US forces; however, EU forces would lack such support, raising the stakes of any potential confrontation.
Given the evident pitfalls of a large-scale deployment of EU troops, one may wonder why such ideas persist. There are likely two primary reasons: either those advocating for this are truly reckless and shortsighted, or they are not fully transparent about their intentions—perhaps reflecting a combination of both.
Addressing the genuinely confused is not productive, but for those seeking ulterior motives, speculation about sending substantial ground forces to Ukraine could have dual purposes, targeting both the new US administration and internal Ukrainian politics.
Regarding Washington, the underlying motive behind discussions of EU ground troops is likely aimed at ensuring Brussels has a role in upcoming US-Russia negotiations. There is merit to the concern that EU leaders might find themselves excluded—a situation that would ironically stem from their complicity in following the Biden administration's lead. With a new administration in place, there is a possibility that the US could prioritize its interests over European considerations.
In Ukraine, the intent may be to bolster external support for mobilization efforts amid dwindling military resources. As numerous observers, including US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the NATO-inclined German magazine Spiegel, have acknowledged, Ukraine is facing significant manpower shortages. The ongoing mobilization efforts resemble a catastrophe, with increasing violence and widespread evasion among individuals resisting conscription. The Zelensky administration is contemplating lowering the mobilization age to as young as 18, even in the event of a peace agreement.
In this context, indicating to reluctant draftees and their families that foreign troops are on the way could serve to pressure them into compliance with military service. However, the reality is that these promised reinforcements may never materialize. Once again, Ukrainians will be subjected to grandiloquent rhetoric from their so-called Western allies, ultimately left to confront continued loss and suffering. The true resolution to this crisis does not lie in further deployments of NATO-EU forces. Instead, a feasible path forward requires a negotiated compromise with Russia, as additional military presence would only serve to hinder such an agreement.
Debra A Smith contributed to this report for TROIB News
