Ukraine and the Danger Zone
Will NATO and the US Intervene?
Ukraine is now entering the Danger Zone. Ukraine’s army is running out of men and material, and worse than that, important parts of the army are trapped by Russian forces. This includes Pokrovsk, of course, Zaphorize and a number of other areas. Meanwhile, Russia continues to pound away at Ukraine’s critical infrastructure: at some point all normal services will collapse completely.
Western intelligence, such as it is (and unfortunately it often supplies assessments that are tailored to what their bosses want to hear) is coming to the realization that in Ukraine the military handwriting is on the wall.
How long Ukraine’s army can remain a coherent organization is uncertain, but the mass desertions and high casualties are well known inside the country by Ukrainian citizens who are paying the price of the war, in one way or another.
Meanwhile, Ukraine is trying its best using its overheated secret services, to try and create provocations that will expand the war to Europe and bail out Ukraine’s regime.
Two current examples illustrate the madness.
The first was a bombing of the Polish railroad connection on the Warsaw-Lublin line that transits massive amounts of war material to Ukraine. Polish leaders fingered the Russians for the evil deed, calling the deed an “unprecedented act of sabotage,” but now that has been reversed by none other than Donald Tusk, the Polish Prime Minister. After making a dramatic visit to the site of the railroad incident, pointing fingers at Putin and his intelligence operatives, he now has partly reversed course. It was Ukrainians that carried out the sabotage, the Tusk has announced, although he insists the Ukrainians collaborated with Russian intelligence. It remains to be seen if Tusk can prove there was collaboration.
Meanwhile the Russian FSB has broken up a plot by Ukraine to assassinate a very senior Russian official. Moskovskij Komsomolets, a Russian newspaper, says that the target was Sergey Shoighu, who was Russian defense minister from 2012 to 2024 and now is secretary (chairman) of Russia’s Security Council.
Added to the mix was an alleged attack on Hungary’s largest oil refinery at Százhalombatta, which processes Russian oil delivered by the Druzhba pipeline. The pipeline itself was targeted by Ukraine earlier.
Perhaps related have been frequent reports of unidentified drones flying near sensitive military installations, armaments factories, and military bases in different European countries. The Europeans have routinely, without hard evidence, blamed the drones on Russia. If the latest Polish “discovery” is any indicator, the drones could be a provocation by Ukraine.
The idea behind all this is straightforward. Ukraine is in bad shape with very poor survival chances. What Ukraine needs, if they can get it, is a NATO military intervention to save Ukraine from a military disaster.
Despite all the bravado talk from NATO personnel and Europe’s pro-Ukraine leaders, the lack of preparedness for war by NATO is clear. NATO does not have adequate stockpiles of weapons, has few combat troops, and lacks enough drones and other critical gear, to field an expeditionary force in Ukraine.
If Ukraine’s forces are nearly spent, and Russia has around 700,000 soldiers along a very long front, how can NATO with only a handful of brigades, commit to war? It is true that NATO does have good warplanes, but Russia has in depth air defenses which NATO’s jets would face. Beyond that, NATO forces are not trained to operate in the new warfighting environment where massive use of drones, glide bombs and precision missiles are the leading edge of battle.
[For the record there are rumors that France will supply French Air Force pilots to Ukraine, although they will not wear French uniforms. This is an old trick that the Russians did in the Korean war, and against in Egypt in 1970. Zelensky and Macron signed a letter of intent for Ukraine to buy more than 100 Rafale fighter jets, although who will foot the bill is not clear.]
What really is behind the sabotage and where the danger zone is, concerns what the US might, or might not do, faced with the imminent collapse of Ukraine? Will Trump send US forces to war in Ukraine?
Sending US forces into actual combat in Ukraine would definitely trigger war in Europe and beyond. Would it work?
US land forces are not much better off than their NATO counterparts. The US would need to figure out how to support American troops in Ukraine, especially if supply lines, now protected by borders, would be exposed to Russian attacks and significant disruption. The history of expeditionary forces in Europe, such as the BEF, were routed by the Germans two times (in World War 1 and World War 2), is not a recommendation going forward.
The Danger Zone is that the Ukraine mess will have mutated into something far worse and much more disruptive and lethal. Until now, Russia and the US have engaged in proxy conflicts but not direct confrontation. Both are nuclear powers, and each has unprecedented destructive capabilities.
In World War 1 military and civilian deaths came to 37 million. In World War 2 the number rose to 70 to 85 million.
There is no real chance for negotiations to settle the conflict. Trump ran into a brick wall after the Alaska summit, when Zelensky and most of the Europeans refused any territorial deal that Trump may have entertained for Ukraine. Thus Trump’s promises to Putin became instantly undeliverable.
President Trump will be under heavy pressure from his NATO partners to come to the rescue of Ukraine. It would be a fatal mistake if he lifts a finger.
Ukraine is where the Confederate States of America were in late 1864/early 1865. The CSA were overwhelmed by Federal numbers, Federal industrial capacity, and Federal logistics. Union military leadership was battle hardened and experienced. The writing was on the wall.
So it is with Ukraine in the fall of 2025.
Ukraine is not a member of NATO, so there is no reason for NATO to get directly involved in this fight. Of course, that is the rational, realist view of this situation. None of the key decision makers in NATO, the EU, UK, Germany, or France are rational or realistic.
Any NATO intervention has no chance of success without US participation. And even with US participation the probability of failure is very high. Take a look at the US military record of success post-World War II. Is that a track record that inspires confidence?
Trump had an opportunity to walk away from this mess in the first month of his presidency. He didn't take it. His inflated ego is now invested in this game. And many of his national security advisors are just as irrational and unrealistic as the Western Europeans.
And the rest of us are along for the ride.........
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.
I think that the corruption scandal currently engulfing Zelenskyy’s government gives Trump a good opportunity to walk away from this messy conflict, which is what he seems to want to do.
If he frames his decision as being made to put an end to the theft of American taxpayers’ money it would be difficult for his domestic opponents to mount a credible case against it.