Western boots on ground in Ukraine do not have to trigger nuclear war

NATO allies swiftly closed ranks when Emmanuel Macron said what you are really not supposed to say.

His comments suggesting there could be “boots on the ground” in Ukraine broke a golden rule of not provoking Moscow.

The remarks triggered a predictable row about escalation. But troops in Ukraine don’t have to trigger a nuclear conflict.

The range of potential options hinted at by Mr Macron varies from the relatively unthreatening but nonetheless controversial, to the very risky.

The shallow end first. Elsewhere in his speech Mr Macron hinted at help for Ukraine to rid the border region with Belarus of the thousands of mines left by Russian troops as they retreated out of the country in late 2023.

This could be a possible task for Western forces.

The question is whether the use on such missions of the paramilitary or gendarmerie forces in service with many European nations would constitute direct military intervention in the war.

As uniformed branches of the state but not, directly, part of any military organisation, would that risk a Nato-russia war?

Moving up the scale of risk, there is the provision of medical care.

Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), the nongovernmental organisation of French origin, is able to work in Ukraine. But military field hospitals could be deemed by Russian troops as potential targets. This is perhaps because to operate they might require some form of defence from attack.

Air defence radars and weapons to guard against long-range missile strikes could be deemed a provocation.

At the high end of the risk register are uniformed Nato trainers or maintainers working inside Ukraine.

Much of this work is being done in the UK (for basic infantry training) and Germany (for tanks and artillery training, among other such work).

Moving people to and fro for initial training and the vital – but often overlooked – requirement for top-up work every few months thereafter can quickly become a logistical burden. And a target.

Largely for those reasons, not much follow-up training is being carried out. The effects on the battlefield are obvious to see.

If uniformed personnel were deemed too provocative, how about a Western-organised band of military veterans, instead of the ad hoc offers of help today from individuals?

Of course, these individuals would be said to be direct participants in hostilities, a legal term meaning they relinquish their rights as civilians to protection, but what care does Russia give to avoiding civilian casualties anyway?

If the scheme was organised efficiently and paid well, veterans may well come forward to serve the cause of freedom once again; a much-needed injection of skills and knowledge.

Mr Macron’s boots on the ground comments were qualified with “in an official and declared way”.

It is likely a clunky reference to the rumoured presence of Western special forces in Ukraine hunting Russian GRU spies trying to find the routes of weapon supplies to the country.

The French president has been criticised in the past for seeking every opportunity to be regarded as a great European leader; a Caesar-figure for the 21st century.

Who can forget his “Zelensky fanboy moment” of wearing jeans, hoodie and stubble in the Elysée Palace after seeing the Ukrainian president play the role of war-time leader so well?

There is undoubtedly a whiff of self-promotion from Mr Macron here too. But maybe, at this moment of great danger, the world needs a leader unafraid to stimulate awkward debate and penser l’impensable – think the unthinkable.

‘At this moment of great danger, the world needs a leader unafraid to stimulate awkward debate’