Tensions spiked between the NATO alliance and Russia Feb. 26 when NATO member Slovakia’s prime minister Robert Fico claimed multiple NATO members were considering deploying troops to Ukraine. French President Emmanuel Macron has consistently said this idea is not off the table, drawing Putin’s ire in the form of renewed nuclear saber-rattling.
Despite some members mulling over this prospect, NATO as a collective has attempted to disavow this idea. However, a lieutenant general in the Luftwaffe escalated the situation March 3 when he admitted the presence of UK special forces in Ukraine on a phone call, which was intercepted and leaked by Russia.
These remarks were followed by confirmation that multiple NATO members have non-combatant special forces soldiers operating in Ukraine. In the weeks after, Macron oscillated between walking back and reaffirming his position, leaving the prospect of deployment on the table.
These developments spark major concerns about an escalation of the war and questions about whether the deployment of military advisors to Ukraine is in the West’s best interests.
Will Putin respond with nuclear force?
Despite the usual rounds of anxiety-inducing articles that appear whenever a nuclear saber is rattled, the answer remains a firm “no.” The latest intelligence leaks tell us this particular red line on a NATO troop presence in Ukraine has been crossed, and Putin has had plenty of time to turn the key between then and now.
Putin has also threatened a nuclear response to any NATO aid for Ukraine, the ascension of Finland and Sweden to NATO and the use of NATO weaponry in areas claimed by Russia, all of which has come to pass — and without nuclear incident.
Additionally, the revelation that NATO already has a few dozen advisors in Ukraine has so far revealed Putin lacks a zero-tolerance policy on the matter. Putin is also currently in no position to stage a massive escalation. The bulk of the Russian army continues to incur thousands of casualties daily for meters of ground in Eastern Ukraine. A full mobilization in Russia to wage a conventional war against NATO is also off the table, as it would cause too much unrest and economic disruption. Any escalation to weapons of mass destruction would be met with more generous promises of aid to Ukraine, at the least.
I must admit I have qualms about deploying military advisors to Ukraine. As a US citizen, I can’t help but remember the steady stream of military advisors that entered Vietnam as a pretext for a full military intervention. As much as I support Ukraine, an over-zealous deployment of advisors would play right into Putin’s hands, allowing him to present his invasion more easily as a defensive effort against the West. This, in turn, opens up a tranche of escalatory policies to Putin, some of which could escalate the war beyond Ukraine, and many of which could more greatly legitimize his war in the eyes of Russians. By successfully spinning an open deployment of NATO advisors into a deployment of a NATO army, Putin could raise domestic support for his invasion, giving him greater leeway to mobilize and recruit troops for a broader European war.
Overall, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has utterly failed to achieve his wider strategic goals of limiting the spread of NATO and permanently fracturing the alliance. One can only hope he realizes a nuclear escalation would unite most of the world against him, regardless of the potential NATO action he is escalating against. So far, it has been almost a month since this latest bantering began, and society is still standing. While every prior escalation has failed to produce nuclear war, this doesn’t guarantee Putin won’t seize on the moment to legitimize his argument of a Russia under siege by the West to eventually wage a conventional war against NATO.
Is the deployment of advisors worthwhile?
First and foremost, a deployment of military advisors to Ukraine would likely expedite the training of Ukrainian soldiers to use NATO equipment. Previously, Ukrainian soldiers had to travel to Fort Sill, OK, for training on how to operate Patriot surface-to-air missile systems, Tucson, AZ, for F-16 training, the UK, for training on HIMARS systems and so on. Shifting more of that training into or near Ukraine could make it easier to train more Ukrainians on NATO equipment and rotate them back into combat.
However, there would certainly be a greater risk of escalation if Ukrainian forces were primarily trained by NATO advisors on Ukrainian soil. Putin would be incentivized to strike such training centers, risking the death of advisors. This could easily snowball into a series of bilateral escalations between any NATO member sending advisors and Russia, which would invite a wider war between Russia and the alliance. Multiple alliance members sending advisers would increase this risk even further.
Furthermore, a formal deployment could expose and expand NATO’s divide in its commitment to Ukraine. Since Macron’s statements, Eastern European members have shown the most support, eager to curb the immediate Russian threat on their borders. Meanwhile, the rest have protested the idea of open deployments, citing potential escalation to WWIII. Even if just one NATO member openly sends military advisors, a choice by Putin to escalate by directly attacking these advisors could paralyze the alliance as some members push for a unified response while others attempt to de-escalate and back off.
Outlining More Pressing Concerns
Discussions around this move have been ongoing, even as other problems emerge on the contact line. Ukraine has alleged that US companies are unknowingly selling satellite data to Russia through third-party companies, affording Russia greater accuracy in their airstrikes.
These allegations are especially concerning, as they come shortly after the revelation Russia had gained access to Starlink’s high-speed internet services through terminals on the battlefield. Against the backdrop of these developments, a general lack of munitions is weakening Ukrainian lines across the front.
As much as I can see the potential long-term usefulness of sending military advisors to fill non-combat roles, there are more pressing, short-term concerns that only involve re-treading over prior red lines. As far as I am currently aware, re-supplying Ukraine with weapons and ammunition it can already use and combatting Russia’s ability to skirt sanctions are more important and immediate endeavors than flooding Ukraine with military advisors.
Contact Jacob Whitney at jwhitney@oxy.edu
