NATO’s Ukraine Expedition: Speculation or Reality?
The Ukraine War is reaching an ever-greater impasse with each passing day. Russia managed to recover after the impact of sanctions and unexpected initial defeats. Ukraine continues to resist the Russian invasion but how sustainable is this war?
While Ukraine’s number of soldiers decreases each day, Russians are mobilizing their immense manpower and replacing lost soldiers by reminding us of a historical reality. Although Western countries have been providing increasingly more equipment aid to Ukraine since the war began, Ukraine has started experiencing shortage in one area: It cannot replace its lost soldiers.
The current situation has led to Ukraine becoming increasingly worn down, and as it completely reverses the positive picture from the war’s first months, Western countries have begun discussing sending troops directly to Ukraine for the first time. French President Emmanuel Macron became the first leader to express that French boots can be on the ground after reminding that Ukraine’s fall would be a catastrophe for Europe. But is it likely for Western states to do so? It’s worth examining the statements that have been ongoing since the beginning of the Ukraine War.
First Days of the War: Aid Begins
Although the US repeatedly published intelligence reports stating that Russia would attack Ukraine in February 2022, many officials not believing this caused Western countries to be caught unprepared for this war. According to some rumors, a German official even told a Ukrainian official calling for help that “they wouldn’t last even three hours and therefore sending aid would be meaningless.” Despite this, Ukraine’s successful resistance began receiving initial aid when Putin’s war, which he expected to last three days, was prolonged. In fact, some of these were at a level that could be considered comical.
On the other hand, Western countries managed to recover quickly and began substantial aid for both civilians and military. Even former Warsaw Pact countries did not hesitate to send old Soviet equipment that the Ukrainian army was accustomed to using to Ukraine.
Supply Disagreement: Consensus Breaks Down
Russia’s three-day war is now in its third year, as Putin couldn’t step back after going so far as to declare a new doctrine. However, as the war prolonged, Ukraine’s needed equipment also diversified over three years. From this point on, disagreements began to occur among Western countries, and contradictory statements arose about which equipment would be supplied to Ukraine.
The first of these was about tanks. Although Ukraine could destroy Russian tanks especially with UAVs and portable air defense systems (MANPADS), particularly Javelin, it also lost its own tanks against Russia’s large tank stock and needed new tanks. At this point, obtaining Abrams tanks from the US and Leopard tanks from Germany came to the agenda. However, it’s worth reminding that these states initially did not approach this issue positively. During this period, Ukraine’s need for tanks became such an agenda item that campaigns were even launched on social media for this cause.
Indeed, the US quickly changed its stance in the end. It was announced that Abrams tanks would be sent to Ukraine, and training of Ukrainian personnel began. This time eyes turned to Germany because Germany had no intention of sending Leopard tanks to Ukraine. This situation quickly caused media and social media campaigns to target Germany. In fact, during this process, Western states began sending their Leopard tanks in their inventory to Ukraine without waiting action from Germany. Finally, Germany backed down and agreed to send Leopard tanks to Ukraine. The rush to send tanks to Ukraine during this period was so intense that even Switzerland, famous for its neutrality, returned its Leopard tanks to Germany for sending to Ukraine.
The second debate was about aircraft. Ukraine’s air force took a heavy blow at the beginning of the war. Despite this, it continued to defend its airspace with remaining aircraft. However, it wasn’t really possible to compete with Russian air power. Thus, this time Ukraine’s request for F-16s began to be expressed. However, Western countries weren’t very supportive of this.
Still, Ukraine continued to express its F-16 request at every opportunity. Although not as much as with tanks, another social media campaign began. Finally, positive signals began coming from the US administration. Nevertheless, the arrival of F-16s is a long process. Since air superiority is an important part of US war doctrine, the sophistication of US aircraft is no secret, and integrating even an aircraft system like the F-16, which can now be considered old, into Ukraine’s Soviet-era defense system requires considerable effort. Also, it should not be ignored that this integration process greatly contributes to the modernization of the Ukrainian army. Still, as of the writing of this article, Ukraine has not yet received F-16s, and both pilot training and system integration process continue.
The third debate occurred over long-range missile systems. Once again, while this request was initially rejected, both the United Kingdom and US soon gave positive signals on this issue. The United Kingdom quickly announced it had supplied Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine. A few months later, the use of American-origin long-range missiles in the field was confirmed by Ukraine.
Once again, Germany refused to join this rush. German Chancellor Scholz took such a rigid stance on supplying Taurus missiles to Ukraine that it was impossible to convince him. Leaked conversations of German commanders on this issue showed that even German officials couldn’t convince Scholz. Despite this crisis, Germany’s stance continues, and Scholz still maintains his hard stance on not sending Taurus missiles to Ukraine.
NATO Military in Ukraine
Scholz’s words in the Taurus missiles crisis created a dramatic effect. While saying he would absolutely not supply long-range missiles to Ukraine, he stated that NATO personnel, particularly British, were present in Ukraine and carrying out targeting of complex missile systems. Of course, these rumors weren’t being expressed for the first time. Similar claims had also been expressed by Poland. Still, Scholz openly expressing this and the United Kingdom not explicitly denying this issue proved the rumors sufficiently true.
However, at this stage, there are no claims about units being actively present in the field. On the other hand, Macron’s words in February 2024 have great importance at this point. As seen, support previously given to Ukraine was accepted over time although initially rejected. Indeed, Macron’s request was rejected by various NATO countries the day after his announcement.
However, Macron is not alone. In January 2024, NATO Military Command Chief Rob Bauer had expressed that the West should no longer ignore the option of entering active war. It can’t be coincidence that about a month after such a high-level NATO official’s statement, Macron made such an announcement.
As before, contradicting statements began to be expressed on this issue as well. Poland had initially opposed Macron’s claim along with Germany. However, at the beginning of March, Poland’s Foreign Minister also expressed that sending military units to Ukraine was not unthinkable. Moreover, it’s worth not ignoring that Poland has been intensively arming since the Ukraine War began.
However, probably no statement is as clear as Rob Bauer saying NATO is ready for conflict with Russia in his statement to a Ukrainian military news site Armyinform on March 22. Although Bauer stated there were no NATO units on active duty in Ukrainian field, he stated that a sovereign NATO member country sending troops to the field on its own initiative would inevitably have consequences in allied countries as well.
Possible Scenarios
The upcoming US elections and the possibility of Donald Trump’s re-election should not be ignored in the rapid change of Western countries and NATO avoiding direct war with Russia. Donald Trump had made statements in this direction before, and the US Congress had adopted various laws to prevent this. However, Trump’s hand should not be thought to be weak. In a possible Trump era, even if the US cannot withdraw from NATO, it can prevent the implementation of Article 5, which is the backbone of the alliance’s collective defense and requires unanimity of member countries.
Considering Trump’s statements that he will cut or at least reduce support to Ukraine, it can be said that elections resulting in this direction would be a harbinger of disaster for Ukraine. It can be said that Western states are therefore hurrying before the election to try to secure some fields in Ukraine. Particularly the mention of Odesa’s name should not be dismissed. Under advancing Russian occupation, Odesa Port is Ukraine’s last major gate opening to the Black Sea, and losing it would mean cutting Ukraine’s connection with the Black Sea.
However, as we stated, considering Western states’ unwillingness to directly conflict with Russia, establishing a secure line extending from Odesa to Kyiv where military units will be located and the war taking place east of this line may be in question. Again, considering that the shipment of armored vehicles at the NATO base in Alexandroupolis to Bulgaria and Romania continues at full speed, it can be thought that certain units will enter Ukraine before the election. Indeed, it’s known that construction of NATO’s largest base in Europe has begun in Romania. However, while construction of this base is just beginning, these shipments taking place is also noteworthy.
Although Russia frequently threatens Western states with using nuclear weapons, as then-French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian reminded at the beginning of the Ukraine War, NATO is also a nuclear alliance. For this reason, while nuclear weapons are not really in question, a possible Russian victory beyond the safe line NATO will draw could be satisfactory for Putin for now.
Another possibility is that Trump abandons Europe conventionally but doesn’t close the nuclear umbrella. Considering that in NATO’s first years, the US’s main support to Europe was the nuclear umbrella and the US expected conventional units to be provided by Europe, pursuing such a policy would be profitable enough for the US and allow the US to shift its military power to Asia.
What Does It Mean for Turkey?
A possible NATO action in the region will pose an important risk for Turkey’s delicate balance policy that it has maintained since the Ukraine War began. On one hand, securing Odesa will benefit Turkey’s Black Sea balances by striking Russia’s superiority on the northern shores of the Black Sea. However, Russia may attempt to make Turkey, a NATO member, pay for this in Idlib.
Turkish and American military presences in Northern Syria support different groups. Although American soldiers are in areas controlled by the terrorist organization YPG, the two countries meet particularly in joint operations against ISIS. However, the US’s protection of the terrorist organization in the region prevents the two allies from cooperating more in Syria.
Turkey has faced two consequences of this situation before. The lack of expected NATO support after the downing of the Russian plane was encouraging for the martyrdom of 33 of our soldiers later in Idlib. Despite Russia not explicitly claiming responsibility and Syria being blamed in official statements, Moscow’s meaningful statements indicated who the real powers behind the treacherous attack were. For this reason, it should absolutely not be ignored that a possible NATO mobility in Ukraine could lead to more problems for Turkey in Syria where it has been left alone.
