NATO Options

 

Andrew Coyne argues that, if the war in Ukraine continues, pressures on Western governments to intervene are going to become unbearable. This war comes with selfies and livestreaming: people are going to see the horror visited on civilians as it happens, and from the personal point of view.

But the fear is that, should nuclear powers engage directly, it could lead to nuclear war. NATO engages as a unit, and includes three nuclear powers.

How might Western governments square this circle?

 The West could send in unmarked drones. Who knows who is controlling them? They could be devastating against that convoy sitting north of Kyiv. The downside is that nobody could know the West was engaging; but if they forced an end to the war with Ukraine relatively intact, the pressure would decline on Western governments.

Perhaps cyberwar, easily kept anonymous, could disrupt Russian command and control. Perhaps it already is.

Might non-NATO, non-nuclear nations be encouraged to engage, in the name of collective security, perhaps even under UN authority, as in the Korean War? The Philippines, for example, has a large population with a cosmopolitan outlook, a strong military tradition, and an unemployment problem. If Russia wanted to retaliate, they are too far away to worry much about it. They are Western in their outlook. Give them the weapons, and they could probably do a good job. Thailand offers a similar option; possibly Indonesia or Malaysia. Tacit agreements with Western powers might make it worth their while. For that matter, the West could clandestinely finance and equip mercenaries from anywhere else. Send in the Foreign Legion—in fact, France has granted legionnaires from Ukraine leave for the duration. Send in the Gurkhas. Send in the Zouaves.