Here is a rather tongue-in-cheek view on the proposition that France and the UK combine forces in an expedition to wipeout Russian soldiers in Ukraine.
There then follows a more serious review and rebuttal of this proposition.
The idea is for France to combine with Britain to send a small expeditionary force to wipe out the Russians in Ukraine.
This does seem like a good idea, given the experience from the first and second world wars and given the economic crises both countries and Germany, and the EU indeed, face at the present time.
Is it not the best time to get involved in a foreign policy initiative, in order to distract people at home from the silly idea that life is changing? After all, success in such a mission would restore global confidence in the West and prove that we are indeed the hegemons of old.
My personal opinion is that this is a foolish, reckless and irresponsible idea. An idea that should be stopped immediately if not by politicians, then, by strong advice from the various ministries of defense, British,French and German.
I also think that there is no justification for such an action. None whatsoever. Furthermore, if it were ever implemented, it would lead to further failures in the long line of American foreign policy failures,from Vietnam through Iraq and Afghanistan.
In recent discussions, a proposition, caricatured above, has surfaced suggesting that Britain and France should dispatch a small expeditionary force to Ukraine to "wipe out the Russians" and restore global confidence in the West.
At first glance, some might see this as a bold move to assert Western dominance and distract from domestic woes. However, this idea is really extremely foolish and dangerously irresponsible. It is imperative that we rebuff this proposition before it leads us down a path of irrevocable consequences.
Playing with Fire on the Global Stage
The notion of sending troops into Ukraine ignores the complex geopolitical realities of the modern world. Unlike the early 20th century, today's international relations are governed by intricate alliances, nuclear deterrence and conventions on human rights. Russia is not a peripheral power; it is a major player with significant military capabilities, acknowledged, as the world's fourth's largest economy after the US, China and India, and includes one of the largest, if not the largest, nuclear arsenals in the world. Furthermore, Russia has just successfully tested a new hypersonic glide missile with multiple warheads that can carry modern explosives, as well as nuclear, that is unstoppable.
Any direct military confrontation risks escalating into a broader conflict that could have catastrophic implications far beyond Europe's borders. It is likely that any expeditionary force sent into ukraine would be quickly identified and eliminated, further humiliating the West.
When things go wrong, do France and Britain seriously imagine that America will intervene on their behalf, never mind any NATO commitments? Of course America won't, and certainly Trump will not be best pleased - Trump has his own plan. Havenly, Republicans just swept the White House and Congress and isn't the will of the American people to stop this war? Perhaps the Europeans are thinking they can take more land, as in Koursk, to strengthen the West's hand in negotiations, but as we've discussed, the time for negotiations is long past: Russia will impose terms at the time of Ukraine's surrender.
For once, Europe is exercising some initiative, but on a subject where it needs to defer to Washington and Washington's think-tanks.
The Illusion of a Quick Victory
Proponents of this idea might argue that a small, swift intervention could achieve decisive results. History tells us otherwise. The history of this particular conflict, the Second Crimeian war, also tells us otherwise.
Conflicts are rarely resolved quickly or cleanly. The experiences of Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq should serve as stark reminders of how military engagements can become protracted quagmires with distrous outcomes. Underestimating the opponent and overestimating one's own capabilities is a recipe for disaster. Why can the West not see this? Where is the justification for such hubris?
Ignoring Diplomatic Channels
Diplomacy exists for a reason. There are established international protocols and organisations designed to handle conflicts, including the United Nations and NATO. Where is the UN justification under international law, where is UN approval for such an invasion? Unilateral military action undermines these institutions and international law and sets a dangerous precedent. It sends a message that "might makes right", eroding the foundations of international law and order that have been painstakingly built over decades. We know perfectly well that America puts its own strategies forward, irrespective of intl law.
Where is Congress approval for this act of war? Putin has said that he considers the attacks on Russian home. Territory to be an act of war by america.Since the missiles can only be fired with active american involvement. Yet Congress has not been consulted.
Domestic Distractions at What Cost?
Using foreign policy as a means to distract from domestic issues, which appears to be the case here, is not only cynical but also detrimental to the nation’s well-being. The economic crises facing Britain, France, Germany and other EU countries, require focused attention and resources. Diverting funds, weapons and political capital to escalate a losing position in an unnecessary war would strain national budgets already under pressure from public debt, probable new rise in inflation and in consequence interest rates.
The Human Toll of War
War is not an abstract concept; it involves real people and real lives. Sending troops into combat puts soldiers in harm's way and risks civilian casualties. Ukraine has already lost 600,000 soldiers, dead and wounded; and probably 10 million Ukrainians have left the country. The humanitarian impact on Ukraine would only bring furrher devastation. None of this can be justified under the guise of restoring confidence or asserting hegemony.
Undermining Global Confidence, Not Restoring It
Far from restoring global confidence, such an aggressive move would likely isolate Britain and France on the world stage. Allies may balk at unprovoked military action, and condemnation by the Global Majority could lead to sanctions or retaliatory measures.
The global community values stability and the rule of law; further acting as aggressors will further damage reputations and diminish America's influence in international affairs.
Lessons from History Ignored
The reference to the First and Second World Wars as justification is misguided. Those conflicts resulted in unimaginable loss of life and were born out of a failure of diplomacy and the rise of unchecked nationalism. Russia won both these conflicts. The Bolsheviks prevailed over the Whites, who were supported by France and Britain. The first Crimeian war was lost by the Russians, won by the Western powers, but this was arguably, not pay military victory and exposed the basic political and military aim focused on taking the Black Sea.
Repeating the mistakes of the past under the illusion of reliving former glories is naïve and dangerously irresponsible.
The Risk of Escalation
Engaging Russian forces directly could trigger a chain reaction. Russia may respond with more force not only in Ukraine but potentially against other interests or allies of Britain and France. The conflict could spill over into other regions, drawing in additional countries and potentially igniting a larger, uncontrollable war. Although this may may sound extraordinary today, American cities are also put at risk.
Alternatives to Aggression
There are more effective ways to address international conflicts and assert leadership on the world stage. Diplomatic efforts, possibly economic sanctions, and support for peace initiatives can pressure aggressors without resorting to war. Investing in international development, promoting human rights, and collaborating on global challenges like Security, Climate Change, Debt, are constructive ways to build confidence and demonstrate leadership in a multi-polar world.
Perhaps the first step is for the west to recognise of that. The international situation is now multi-polar, ie power is shared by multiple sovereign states.
Conclusion: A Call for Reason
The idea of sending an expeditionary force to Ukraine is a perilous gambit that risks lives, destabilises the region, and undermines international norms. It is a rash solution to complex problems that cannot be solved with force alone. Politicians and defense ministries must dismiss this proposition outright and focus on strategies that recognise the new multi-polar reality and promote peace, stability, and prosperity throughcooperative strategies, both for our peoples at home and globally.
The challenges facing Britain, France, and the wider European community are significant but not insurmountable. Turning to military aggression as a means of distraction is not only unethical but ultimately self-defeating. It is time for cooler heads to prevail and for exceptional and determined leaders to steer us towards a future built on cooperation, not conflict.
