France's Macron's words "sending troops to Ukraine are not ruled out" have caused an uproar in Western political circles in recent days. After being "cut off" by the United States and European Union friends one after another, he still did not change his words, insisting that every word he said about the Russia-Ukraine conflict was "well thought out".
In my opinion, what France ** Macron said "does not rule out sending troops to Ukraine" is actually just a public act of sending troops that has existed for a long time. Since the beginning of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, mercenaries have frequently appeared on the Russian-Ukrainian battlefield, they come from Western countries, although they are not clearly labeled as NATO, but who can tell the bottom of the situation. However, in the following cases, the fact that NATO sent troops should be able to prove it.
The first is the NATO maintenance servicemen in Ukraine. According to **, some of the maintenance personnel of some military equipment assisted by the United States and NATO to Ukraine are active duty soldiers of NATO. And the more high-end the system, the more the maintenance personnel are all active NATO soldiers. Does this count as NATO's direct dispatch of troops?
The second type, according to **, there are some NATO soldiers in Ukraine, mainly the special forces of the United States and the United Kingdom, these NATO soldiers perform "special missions" in Ukraine, and also train Ukrainian soldiers. Does this count as a direct dispatch of troops?
Third, since the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the U.S. intelligence system, air and sea surveillance systems have been busy with this war in all directions, providing Ukraine with accurate battlefield intelligence. It can be said that several notable battlefield achievements in Ukraine have been made thanks to the US intelligence system. This is not a direct dispatch of troops?
The fourth scenario is quite interesting. According to **, the so-called mercenaries who are currently serving in Ukraine have long gone beyond the boundaries of fighting for money in the traditional sense. They are actually active military personnel of NATO countries, and after their retirement, their "switch" to Ukraine is nothing more than a well-planned "drama". In Ukraine, they still have the mission of the army, which is very different from the earlier status of mercenaries who fought only for profit. And that's not counting a direct troop?
The Russia-Ukraine conflict is like a complicated chess game, and NATO countries have long become important chess players in it. The United States and its allies, and Russia, although they have not publicly torn their faces, reveal deep entanglements in each other's actions and strategies. They tacitly maintain a delicate balance, as if there is an invisible red thread, and both sides are careful not to touch it.
As a result, we see one "show" after another, in which both sides try to disguise their true intentions in this way, while at the same time sending a certain message to the other side. Those missiles that flew towards the Crimean bridge and Russian ships, were their buttons pressed by Ukrainian soldiers, or were they secretly controlled by the Americans? This has become a difficult mystery to solve. In this suspenseful and complicated game, the United States and NATO say that we did not send troops directly, and Russia said that the United States and its NATO did not send troops directly. In fact, both sides are guarding a red line that cannot be touched, and neither side can afford a third world war.
The United States and its NATO have already sent troops directly, why did Macron pierce this veil at this time? The direct driving force is the Paris summit on aid to Ukraine. At this meeting, although the EU countries expressed their unanimous opinions verbally, they secretly made their own small calculations, and this kind of inconsistent behavior made Macron, as the moderator, deeply anxious. Therefore, he chose to use this straight sentence to stimulate EU countries, hoping that they can realize that the Russia-Ukraine conflict has reached a critical turning point. If a unified position and action are not formed at this time, Ukraine's defeat will be like a sword of Damocles hanging over its head, which may fall at any time. This would not only mean a catastrophe for Ukraine, but would also pose a direct threat to the collective security of the whole of Europe.
The core factor is that the United States is at the top of the day, and Trump, who has threatened to withdraw from NATO, may be able to return to the White House. Even more troubling is the fact that even though he is not currently in power, Trump confidently declares that if elected, he will quell the war between Russia and Ukraine within 24 hours. Europe was tied to the chariot by the United States, but now the United States intends to withdraw from the possibility. If such a change becomes a reality, how will the EU respond? At such a critical moment, its member states are in their own ways, so how can Macron be safe.
Of course, this statement also speaks to Macron's personal reasons. That is, the contradiction between him and German Chancellor Scholötz on the issue of aid to Ukraine, he once announced that he would provide 8 billion euros of military aid to Ukraine this year, but he has been hesitant on the issue of aiding Taurus missiles. He feared that aiding Taurus missiles would lead to an expansion of the conflict between Germany and Russia. Actually, this is just one of the incidents. On the issue of aiding Ukraine, Germany has always been like this, saying more and doing less. When has this been, are you still hesitating? So Macron is also stimulating Scholz.
Macron insisted that sending troops to Ukraine was deliberate. I also see it this way, Macron's remark is indeed well thought out, and it is by no means a mouthful.
The Russia-Ukraine war has entered its third year, and the battlefield situation has shown that it is only a matter of time before Russia wins this war. The New York Times recently reported: "U.S. sources say Ukraine could lose the war without a new strategy and additional economic assistance." ”
Since the outbreak of the war, a central issue has gradually surfaced and become more and more visible. That is the population gap between Russia and Ukraine, which has more than three times the population of Ukraine, and this overwhelming advantage translates into the number of soldiers on the battlefield, which becomes a key factor in determining victory or defeat.
Putin's decision to increase the number of troops by 170,000 is a concrete embodiment of this advantage, on the other hand, Ukraine, the source of troops has been nearly exhausted, and the figures of child soldiers, women soldiers, and old men abound in the Ukrainian army. NATO's disguised mercenaries, in the face of such a reality, seem so insignificant that they cannot make up for the huge gap in Ukraine's military strength.
At the Paris summit on aid to Ukraine, representatives of various countries had in-depth discussions on various possible plans for aid to Ukraine. Of course, the possibility of sending troops directly must have been put on the table. However, in the face of Russia's demographic advantage, no aid plan for Ukraine can make up for this shortcoming.
At present, it is true that only direct troops can make up for it, and the original aid to Ukraine is mainly in two parts: one is ** and funds, and the other is economic sanctions against Russia, kicking Russia out of the international ** system. But judging by the development of the past two years, Russia has survived, and it is even better than that of European countries. No matter how much ** is given to Ukraine, it is useless if there is no source of soldiers.
The fate of Ukraine hangs in the balance, and the eyes of the world are in the balance. Neither the United States on the other side of the Atlantic, nor the ancient European continent, can tolerate the defeat of Ukraine. This invisible bond makes the possibility of NATO sending troops no longer out of reach. Macron's words are more like a foreshadowing of the future situation than an empty conjecture.
We cannot easily dismiss his foresight based on his words alone, and perhaps his outspokenness is just a secret that others think in their hearts but dare not say. In this complex international game, Macron may be a subtle hint that NATO may directly send troops to Ukraine, but it is packaged in more direct and bold rhetoric.
Therefore, we cannot easily dismiss Macron's words as rhetoric. In this uncertain international arena, no possibility should be easily ruled out. Macron's words may be a kind of foresight of the future, and a warning is not known.