Named a tough response to Macron’s words about sending troops to Ukraine

“Warsaw and Vilnius will burn”

The very possibility of Macron talking about sending troops of any NATO country into Ukraine stems from one very simple, but unpleasant for us, thing.

Photo: AP

It’s worth mentioning right away that it’s not about Macron. It could be, for example, Nauseda. (Don’t know who this is? Well, okay. This is the President of Lithuania.) It is important that someone says something out loud that seems impossible now.

This scheme was tested from the very beginning. Let's remember that, for example, Germany two years ago spoke exclusively about helmets and did its best to deny the supply of lethal weapons. Then there were Javelins, howitzers, attack drones, armored vehicles. And every time it seemed impossible. Then someone, no matter who, said “tanks.” And again they started shouting — well, no, not tanks, this is such an escalation, the Russians will answer us cruelly, no, no, we can’t! But it’s possible. There they are, the tanks. Yes, they are burning in the fields of Ukraine, but they have arrived. And then someone said “fighters.” And again: well, this is absolutely impossible. Oh?

The impossible always became possible.

Why?

The answer is unpleasant to hear, but necessary. Because we responded to every statement from the West: this is an escalation, this means NATO’s direct participation in the conflict, “legitimate military targets,” we will strike “attacks on decision-making centers.” And… nothing happened. From our side. What about them? Here are the tanks, here are the fighter jets on the horizon, here are the NATO crews of the “Ukrainian” air defense systems that “retired two weeks ago…

The West is escalating in practice, and in response receives only words.

This is how the opportunity arose to speculate (just speculate for now, but against the backdrop of the largest NATO exercises in Europe this takes on additional meaning) about the introduction of foreign troops into Ukraine. Why not try? (The situation is the same. Even the loud statements from Scholz, for example, about the impossibility of this are exactly the same.)

But they reason something like this. This is the territory of Ukraine. So what if, say, a Polish army and some Lithuanian battalion are fighting here? A rocket didn’t fly to Warsaw for the tank, did it? Why then should she fly for the assigned soldiers? You see what Moscow’s words about NATO’s involvement in the conflict really mean? It was the late Zhirinovsky who prophesied among the Russians that Warsaw and Vilnius would burn. But in reality, no one wants World War III, Russians love their children too? Let's let it go.

All managers know that if drinking at work is inevitable, then to minimize losses it should be led. More seriously, Putin said: if a fight is inevitable, strike first.

The only way to avoid further escalation is to lead the escalation. Manage it. And it’s not difficult — just words should not be at odds with deeds. In the meantime, the reins of power are not in our hands.