Two ideas recently floated by Boris Johnson and Emmanuel Macron could bring the war to an end on terms favorable to Ukraine – perhaps even this year. If only Europe had the resolve to act…
For four years the West has been dancing around Russia, reluctant to truly confront the Kremlin ruler. And not only the Donald Trump Administration in the past year – European governments have been hedging and evading since 2022, so carefully that caution itself has become a grand strategy.
Now two bold, yet fundamentally logical ideas – and the only workable as deterrent against Russia – have emerged:
First, Boris Johnson, the former British prime minister and staunch supporter of Ukraine, called recently for deployment of a non-combat NATO mission to Ukraine. It immediately triggered familiar excuses – the mantra of the past four years: “Ukraine is not in NATO, and NATO is only for defense purposes.” Oh, and these troops would be… in the line of Russian fire! Oh, no!
Second, French President Emmanuel Macron has proposed a framework for sharing France’s nuclear shield with interested European countries. Bold, even if politically delicate – since France would retain full control – but above all, a perfect deterrent against Russia. Super! So Ukraine is first in line, right? Not quite.
Four years into Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Europe has come a long way – but still is shaking in its boots – or, more elegantly: is wanting in resolve.
By refusing a credible, visible NATO presence inside Ukraine, European governments may be prolonging the very war they claim to want ended.
In early 2022, many in the West saw Russia as a military superpower. The invasion proved otherwise: formidable in size, hollow in execution. Western policy shifted – from sending Javelins and, famously, German helmets, to providing Ukraine with advanced artillery, air defenses, intelligence, and financial aid. Without it, Kyiv likely would have fallen in February 2022 and Ukrainians know that and remain deeply grateful.
But this assistance hit the wall before securing victory for Ukraine, as Russia began receiving a crucial economic lifeline from China, along with weapons from Iran and North Korea.
This development should have spurred the West into taking the next step. It did not. President Zelensky’s repeated pleas to close the skies over Ukraine went unanswered.
Now we are at it again: by refusing a credible, visible NATO presence inside Ukraine, European governments may be prolonging the very war they claim to want ended.
The clearest legal basis for NATO deployment would be a formal invitation from Ukraine. Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, Kyiv has the right to collective self-defense, allowing NATO assistance – without UN Security Council approval or a Russian veto. Other options include a coalition of willing states outside NATO command or a post-ceasefire monitoring mission.
The real obstacle
The real obstacle isn’t legality – it is political will, or traditional lack thereof for fear of “escalation.”
President Zelensky wants NATO peacekeepers near the frontlines. Boris Johnson has proposed something bolder: deploy them now, before peace. The logic is clear: the Kremlin calibrates its aggression just below what it believes would provoke NATO. Leaving that threshold abstract only invites further probing – Russia knows that directly touching NATO is off-limits.
This is not the first time Johnson has advanced the idea of deploying NATO troops, so it is unsurprising that criticism of his renewed call was quickly repeated with warnings that unarmed British personnel could become easy targets.
The concern is understandable – but it highlights a core strategic failure the West has yet to address: Russia assumes NATO will never risk its troops being targeted. Deterrence only works if that calculation changes. If, as President Joe Biden has signaled, you refuse to act, Moscow will continue testing the limits.
A multinational NATO deployment – clearly allied, not British alone, and limited to non-combat, training, logistics, or monitoring roles – would not be mere theater. It would send a powerful message: Ukraine’s sovereignty is central to European security.
A nuclear umbrella over Ukraine?
Now, as even sending troops in a non-combat role raises fears in European capitals, one can only imagine the resistance to the idea of extending the nuclear umbrella over Ukraine.
Moscow understands escalation and its consequences. Yet Europe still fails to grasp this cause and effect phenomenon: Just as a limited deployment – backed by self-defense guarantees and integrated intelligence – would make Russians think twice before striking NATO troops, stretching the nuclear umbrella over Ukraine could stop Russia in its tracks and even force Moscow to reconsider its hold on the Donbas, where they would be also pressured by the Armed Forces of Ukraine…
Critics say bold moves underestimate risk and overstate deterrence. Yet incrementalism driven by fear has produced little stability: Russia still bombs cities, mobilizes troops, and digs in. Avoiding provocation has not stopped provocation.
The deeper problem is European credibility
In 2021, as Russia massed troops on Ukraine’s borders, the West offered only warnings and sanctions. Months of debate over so-called “escalatory” weapons signaled caution, not resolve – teaching Moscow that probing boundaries carries no consequences.
The West has shown solidarity and generosity towards Ukraine but not the strategic clarity that ends wars rather than manages them. Four years in, the question is no longer whether Ukraine can fight. It is whether the West is prepared to demonstrate – unequivocally – that Ukraine’s sovereignty is an absolute strategic imperative.
Until that conviction is made tangible, Moscow will keep testing the West and bombing Ukraine.
The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.