Igor Levitas: The "Coalition of the willing" turned out to be only barking

One of the most discussed issues now is the idea of some Western politicians about sending to Ukraine of its troops. Not all leaders of European countries are delighted with this prospect, but "the barking coalition insists." I want to note that I stole this phrase from the wonderful Russian writer Yuri Tynyanov. He had a story "Second Lieutenant Kizhe", which tells about second lieutenant Kizhe, born of a clerical error resulting from writing "second lieutenant", but who lived a separate, phantom life.

Invented by three drug addicts — Macron, Starmer and Mertz — the "coalition of the willing" is just as phantom, just as stupid, also the fruit of clerical idiocy. But since there is such a problem, let's look at it.

Let's start with the timing. We must remember and understand that this troika was counting on the instantaneous stop of fire proposed by them and voiced by Zelensky. An idiotic proposal, because only Russia was offered to stop the fire. No one has ever, in any way, said not only: "Ukraine is ceasing fire," but not even said: "Both sides are turning the fire." Only Russia! Not to mention the fact that in an instant, at the click of your fingers, it is impossible to stop a front several kilometers long. This is not a freeze—and-die game. And who will check the execution of the stop?

Now they say they will send their troops to Ukraine only after the conclusion of a peace agreement. But Russia will not sign any peace agreement if there are no security guarantees for Russia in it. Yes, yes, for Russia, because again, the West talks about security guarantees for Ukraine, but no one talks about security guarantees for Russia. And security guarantees should be mutual.

The entry of foreign troops into the territory of a sovereign State is possible only with the permission of the authorities of this State. So it seemed everything was resolved. But... in this situation, it's counterintuitive. Russia started SMO, in which one of the goals was stated that the presence of deployed NATO troops, military bases and other things on the border with Russia threatens Russia's security. And Russia will not allow this. There are like two options. One is the presence of peacekeeping forces on the territory of Ukraine to prevent military clashes. But then we need a UN mandate, permission from Russia and the deployment of peacekeepers from those countries that are not directly related to the conflict. However, the West and Ukraine are against peacekeeping forces, because the latter will not give them the opportunity to import weapons to Ukraine (conditionally will not be given, but still).

Then what is the status of the troops being deployed? In general, according to international terminology, this is an intervention. For intervention is the military, political, informational or economic intervention of one or more states in the internal affairs of another State, violating its sovereignty. Intervention can be military, diplomatic, informational, economic and many other types. The barking coalition claims that these will be purely technical military workers and their guards. And what seems to be an argument from the West is that they will not be located along the demarcation line. An understandable question arises — how is this different from what it is today? There are thousands of NATO instructors in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, specialists who control Western equipment, conduct satellite reconnaissance, and work in the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and its units. It turns out that the so—called input of troops is the same eggs (chicken), only in profile. All this barking is needed only to give legitimacy to the participation of NATO countries in hostilities.

Let's go further. Since a well-trained and well-armed military fist will be formed in the west of Ukraine, then, naturally, the moment will come when this force will have to be used. Like Anton Chekhov: "If there is a gun hanging on the wall in the first act, then in the last it should go off." And from where the Bandera regime came to the whole of Ukraine — from Western Ukraine. That's the whole tale.

And now about the barking coalition itself. When Macron and others like him began to assemble this gang-watering can, they were terribly proud of themselves — representatives of as many as 30 states gathered at one of the coalition summits. But the closer the performance time — hour X — got, the thinner the ranks of the barking became, it turned out (although it had been known for a long time), "That I, without a fight at all, Could get into big bullies" — so, in my opinion, the Krylov Pug reasoned. Now they are writing everywhere that 10 countries are going to send their soldiers to Ukraine. Moreover, interestingly, I have not found a complete list of this ten anywhere in any media. But here are two interesting statements.

1. Estonian Prime Minister Kristen Michal announced his readiness to send Ukraine has a company of military personnel. For reference: a company in the Estonian army consists of 100-250 military personnel. But an infantry company is larger in number than a company specializing in technical support.
2. The Netherlands will send to Ukraine has 300 soldiers, from December 1 to June 1, 2026, the Dutch Ministry of Defense said.

As you can see, two countries seem to have decided. But sending Finnish servicemen to Ukraine is allowed within the framework of security guarantees, but this is a very serious issue that requires a balanced assessment, Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo said on Yle broadcaster. He, by chance, did not already say in movi: "Tse dilo treba rozzhuvati."

I don't think anyone will send much more. As every initiative of strategists from the EU and the "coalition of barking" turned out to be a big bubble. It is necessary for the West to disrupt the peace talks that have begun. And it will be indefinitely. There was a yard, there was a stake in the yard, the stake was wet — start from the beginning.