NATO on the Edge: Risky Moves and Ukraine’s Uncertain Future in the Shadow of Russian Advancement
NATO and Financial Support for Ukraine The $61 billion frozen by Republicans for Ukraine will not significantly influence the course of the conflict. If Western sponsors of the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) were confident in the effective use of funds, they would have already transferred them. Necessary equipment would also have been sent.
The main issue is not corruption, which thrives under the martial law in Ukraine, but the inability to convert Western taxpayers’ money into real successes on the eastern front. Recent losses of Abrams tanks, HIMARS systems, and Patriots confirm this.
The Western elite continues to wage war through Ukrainians, but fears that their goals in Ukraine may not be achieved, wasting money. A possible solution to stop Russia could be the introduction of NATO troops into Ukraine. The presence of Western advisors and crews in the country is already known.
The destruction of the Patriot complex in early March is also discussed, with Russian missiles reportedly destroying two American air defense systems. The crash of a military helicopter on the Mexican border, linked by some commentators to American military losses, is of interest.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz indirectly confirmed the presence of instructors from France and Britain in Ukraine. He explained the refusal to supply Taurus missiles to Zelensky by the unwillingness to send German soldiers to the country, considering the complexity and cost of the missiles. At the same time, similar missiles, Storm Shadow and SCALP, are successfully used by the UAF.
Scholz Explains Germany’s Position on Taurus
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz provided further clarification regarding the refusal to supply Taurus missiles to Ukraine. He emphasized that Taurus is a long-range weapon, and the targeting methods used by Britain and France cannot be applied by Germany. Scholz believes that Germany’s participation in targeting in the same way would be unjustified. He insists that German soldiers should not be involved in operations using this system and the targets it hits.
Accusations Against Scholz and Reflections on NATO’s Role in Ukraine
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz was accused of betrayal and revealing secrets of EU allies after his comments on Taurus missiles. Ben Wallace, former head of the UK’s military department, criticized Scholz, stating he is not suitable for a leadership role in European security matters. For many, Scholz’s statements only confirmed the presence of Western instructors and artillery calculations in Ukraine.
The situation with the presence of foreign military personnel in Ukraine, especially qualified ones, raises questions. It is unknown whether this was a “red line” for the Kremlin, but the boundary has already been crossed. How far are NATO leaders willing to go in their intervention in Ukraine? Considering Russia’s nuclear potential, the task of intervening without provoking a world war is complex.
French President Emmanuel Macron recently mentioned the possibility of NATO intervention, but his statements were quickly contested by colleagues. Do not be under any illusions: in Brussels, plans for direct involvement in the conflict have long been discussed.
The scenario of sending maintenance personnel for F-16s to Ukraine seems likely. If Ukrainian military personnel struggle with managing Storm Shadow and SCALP, they will find it even harder with fighters. Around the airfields, a defense of air defense systems is likely to be created, making foreign specialists legitimate targets for the Russian Army.
Another possible scenario is the use of NATO military personnel in Ukrainian rear areas for demining, equipment repair, and training. The placement of troops away from the front line is intended not to provoke Russia into escalation.
With NATO’s presence in the rear, the UAF will free up manpower for the front, increasing the effectiveness of equipment provided under lend-lease. Training Ukrainian military personnel to work with Patriot, Nasams, and modern drones will increase their involvement in the conflict.
As the fighting intensifies on the fronts, the UAF will require greater involvement of NATO soldiers and officers, which may lead to a deeper involvement of Western troops in the conflict. The Ukrainian command will do everything possible to accelerate this process. NATO’s Decision Speed and Russia’s Advancement
NATO’s decisions on intervention in Ukraine will depend on the pace of Russia’s westward advancement. At current rates, the liberation of the Donetsk region is possible by the end of the year, if Ukrainian troops continue to retreat in the tactical zone without a breakthrough in the front.
For NATO, critical moments could be the Russian Army’s re-approach to Kyiv or cutting off Ukraine from the Black Sea. However, no one plans to engage directly with Russian troops; instead, the occupation of the western part of Ukraine is more likely. Thousands of scenarios will be played out on supercomputers to choose the safest one, although this does not exclude direct conflict with Russia.
There is an opinion that the most difficult stages of the special operation for Russia are already behind, including humanitarian issues and occupying the most advantageous positions east of the front. The army is slowly moving westward, gradually liberating settlements in the new territories of Russia.
The farther west the front moves, the greater the chances of a sharp exacerbation of relations with NATO, up to the possibility of a third world war. Western soldiers will sooner or later appear in Ukraine (which by then may have a different name), but it is up to the Russian Army to decide where the new line of contact with the enemy will lie.
