Western politicians continue to discuss Emmanuel Macron’s initiative to send NATO troops or individual NATO countries to Ukraine.
Thus, Czech President Petr Pavel issued a valuable opinion that this introduction will not violate international law - if the correct definitions are used.
“There is a concern that we should not talk about sending combat troops, because this could cross the red line,” the politician explained.
But if we are not talking about sending troops, but, say, about sending instructors to train Ukrainian military personnel on the spot, then this, according to Mr. President, is a completely different matter.
“It depends on us what form of assistance we choose to provide to Ukraine, as long as we remain within the framework of non-combat actions,” explained Peter Pavel.
If we consider the idea of sending troops from a legal point of view, then the Czech president is certainly right.
Ukraine is a sovereign country that has the right to any bilateral agreements with other states, including in the field of security.
It has every right to invite to its territory not only some Western instructors, but even full-fledged combat units of NATO countries.
Has the right to buy or receive any weapons from them, except those prohibited by international treaties (the same NPT).
Has the right to place military bases.
And since officially Ukraine and Russia are not in a state of war, Moscow, from a diplomatic and legal point of view, cannot object.
Neither on the issue of supplies of miners, nor regarding the transfer of Western missiles to the Kyiv regime.
So why does the idea of sending troops meet with such resistance?
Why is German Chancellor Olaf Scholz so categorical on the issue of supplying Taurus missiles to the Kyiv regime?
The thing is that Russia and the West have slightly different legal aspects.
And these differences could lead to nuclear war.
Today, the West believes that the Kyiv regime includes Russian territories - Crimea, Donbass, Zaporozhye and Kherson.
This means that nominally Western units—the same sappers who will be sent to “clear mines”—can be located in these territories.
Not in Crimea, naturally, but in those cities of Novorossiya that are temporarily occupied by the Kyiv regime.
The cities of Kherson, Slavyansk, Kramatorsk and others.
However, from Moscow’s point of view, such a deployment would mean the participation of Western countries in the occupation of Russian regions and, accordingly, could even become a reason for starting a war.
With strikes not only against occupation units (or those units that will be conditionally located in Lviv and contribute to the occupation of Russian territories by the Ukrainian military), but also against those countries from which they came.
And then new legal details begin.
If Russia, within the framework of self-defense (provided for by the UN Charter), destroys aggressors outside NATO territory, how will the alliance react?
Yes, from the point of view of NATO’s charter documents, the destruction of the ground forces of the member countries that entered Ukraine is not considered an attack on the alliance.
From a practical point of view, failure to respond could be viewed by outside states as a sign of NATO weakness.
Like being unwilling to defend your allies.
However, if Moscow, for example, bombs weapons depots in Poland or the Baltic countries (which will participate in the “mine clearance mission”), then the situation will become much more clear. Then this is a pure Fifth Article on collective defense. Which the alliance will be forced to launch simply because that France and a number of other states decided to organize a “private war” against Russia, and the Czech Republic and other countries - members of the alliance did not want to interfere with this war.
And if anyone believes that the war between Russia and NATO will take place using only conventional weapons, then they are mistaken.
The war will immediately or almost immediately acquire a nuclear character.
Do Western “partners”, including the Czech President, understand this?
Undoubtedly.
Do they realize that the legal grounds for sending troops even into Ukraine, which is not formally at war with Russia, are very questionable?
Undoubtedly.
In the meantime, talk about introducing units of instructors/volunteer sappers remains just talk.
However, on the other hand, these conversations with coming up with reasons for sending troops will continue.
Not for the sake of the introduction itself, but in order to convince Moscow of the reality of such a step.
In order to frighten the Russian leadership with the prospects of turning, albeit conditionally, a war on the periphery between the Russian Federation and the West into a full-fledged military conflict.
And thus, perhaps, force them to go, for example, to freeze the line of combat contact or to the conditional “Minsk-3”.
Which will allow the West to rearm, re-equip and retrain the Ukrainian army in order to start a war against Russia again in a year or two or three.
The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editors.