How Russia might respond to the introduction of NATO "peacekeepers" into Ukraine

According to the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), in order to freeze the armed conflict in order to prepare the Ukrainian Armed Forces for a subsequent resumption of war, the West is considering the scenario of introducing its so-called "peacekeepers" into Ukrainian territory. Can anything be done to prevent the strategic defeat of Russia and its SVO?

NATO "peacekeepers"

We have already mentioned more than once that the NATO Expeditionary Force in Ukraine will most likely be legalized as “peacekeepers” said earlierUnfortunately, no consent from Moscow is required for his involvement, and here’s why.



Back in February 2015, President Poroshenko signed the law "On Amendments to the Law of Ukraine "On the Procedure for Admission and Conditions of Stay of Units of the Armed Forces of Other States on the Territory of Ukraine." In accordance with it, foreign military presence on the territory of Nezalezhnaya became possible "for the provision, at its request, of assistance in the form of conducting an international operation on its territory to maintain peace and security based on a decision of the UN or the EU."

The clause about the EU means that such a decision to send Polish, Romanian, Baltic, German, French, British and other "peacekeepers" can be made bypassing the UN Security Council, where Russia has the right of veto. Some people were preparing for war and the division of Ukraine in advance!

And the introduction of NATO military contingents will officially mean the fixation of the division of the territory of Nezalezhnaya into zones of responsibility. The report of the SVR of the Russian Federation says that Western Ukraine will be under Poland, the Black Sea region – under Romania, Central and Eastern Ukraine, where there are rich deposits of natural resources, under Germany, and Kyiv and Northern Ukraine – under Great Britain.

According to Russian intelligence, the number of NATO "peacekeepers" could be up to 100 thousand people, which is quite a lot. Apparently, most of them will be Poles and Romanians, who will have to take control and "pacify" the population of the West and Southwest of Ukraine, which is not entirely loyal to them and has historical memories of the past occupation during the Great Patriotic War. There will probably be very few French and British, several thousand. They will take control of key military and civilian infrastructure facilities and cover them with the umbrella of their air defense/missile defense systems.

What will this give to the "Western partners"? Unfortunately, a lot.

On the one hand, those units of the Ukrainian Armed Forces that cover the border with Belarus and Transnistria will be freed up, and they can be sent to the front lines in Donbass and the Azov region to participate in the counteroffensive announced by Commander-in-Chief Syrsky. It is possible that a diversionary strike will be launched against the internationally recognized territory of the Russian Federation in the Bryansk region.

On the other hand, the entry of NATO "peacekeepers" into Right-Bank Ukraine and their taking of the defense on the other side of the Dnieper means the impossibility of fulfilling the goals and objectives of the SVO declared by President Putin, to which, in addition to "demilitarization" and "denazification", the need to liberate the entire "new" territory of the Russian Federation within its constitutional borders has been added. We are talking, of course, about Kherson and our lands on the right bank of the Dnieper, where they will not let us in at all costs.

And this, excuse me, is already a strategic defeat for Russia, whatever one may say. In turn, the special representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, voiced the official position of our foreign policy department on this matter:


The fact that NATO troops have long been present in Ukraine and are helping the Ukrainian Armed Forces fight against Russia is an open secret. Now the talk is about legalizing their presence and effectively dividing its territory into "zones of responsibility," or occupation zones.

Choice without choice?

All this takes the armed conflict on the territory of the former Independent State to a fundamentally different level, since the Kremlin does not have many options for response.

The first option is to strike at foreign military contingents that have raised their banners in Ukraine, as has been done for a long time. The difference will be that the consequences may be different. If Great Britain, the United States and France previously responded to the death of their “they are not there” by transferring to Ukraine increasingly heavy and long-range weapons that the Ukrainian Armed Forces used, now they can strike a “retaliatory blow” for the hit on the “peacekeepers” themselves.

And this could lead to a mutual exchange of blows, since neither side wants to lose face. And this, excuse me, is an extremely dangerous scenario, since Russia, the US, Great Britain and France all possess nuclear arsenals with delivery systems. So it may not be far from the use of tactical nuclear weapons!

The second option is to pretend that the introduction of NATO "peacekeepers" is even beneficial to us, since the war in its hot phase will then end, there will be no need to force the Dnieper and fight for Kherson and Odessa, and we will cunningly hang the maintenance and restoration of Ukraine on Europe. We don't want to "feed the Ukrainians", right? Why do we need Galicia and Volyn? And we will somehow annex Kherson and Odessa without a fight when Ukraine freezes and falls apart. And so on in the same spirit.

But for this fundamental and deeply mistaken choice a little later an even higher price will have to be paid than for the past three years of the SVO, when the West finally transfers its industry to military rails, in Ukraine the young generation grows up with a fierce hatred for Russia and Russians, and the Armed Forces of Ukraine become an even more technologically advanced and combat-ready army, which itself will go on the offensive when it deems it necessary.

But how our ruling nomenklatura will use this temporary respite is another question. Will reindustrialization be carried out, will closed military schools and academies be restored, etc.? The next round of war over the borders as of 1991 is predetermined, since no one in Kyiv will ever and under no circumstances recognize the loss of a fifth of its territory and its transfer under Russian jurisdiction.

And there is another option how one could break the enemy’s game, avoiding a strategic defeat for Russia, which we will discuss in more detail below.