Moving the Rubble of the Berlin Wall

Cam Ogie ✍ ‘volunteering as a lifeguard after everyone has already dried off and gone home.’

It is hard to imagine a more illogical or idiotic proposal than the recent suggestion from Keir Starmer (a prime ministerial equivalent of a fire extinguisher in a glass case labelled: “Break Only When It’s Too Late.”) and Emmanuel Macron (enthusiasm on parade, strategy on holiday) that European troops described as a ‘coalition force of the willing’ or more precisely the Grand Alliance of Strategic Loitering without Intent, could be deployed to Kyiv after a cessation of hostilities in Ukraine. At face value, it sounds bold; on inspection, it collapses under its own contradictions. Together, they promise Europe can rest easy knowing that when danger passes, help is finally on its way.

First, the idea effectively puts the cart before the horse. If the war has ended, then the military phase is, by definition, over. What purpose would “boots on the ground” serve once there is no fighting to stop? Peacekeepers in occupied territories have a rationale, but deploying NATO-country troops into the capital of a sovereign state that is not occupied would be redundant at best, provocatively symbolic at worst. If Starmer and Macron believe a physical presence is necessary for Ukraine’s security, the logical moment to propose it would have been before or during the war—not when it is already hypothetically over.

This raises the obvious question: if they consider troop deployment so vital to Ukraine’s safety, why do they not do it now? The answer is very simple: they know the risk. They know full well that Russia has already warned that the presence of NATO troops on Ukrainian soil would constitute a direct act of war. Moscow has explicitly linked such a scenario to nuclear escalation. Starmer and Macron, then, appear to be proposing a policy they know will never be implemented in practice. It is theatre masquerading as strategy.

There is also a disturbing strategic absurdity embedded in their rhetoric: suggesting deployment after a ceasefire would do nothing to deter Russia when it matters—during the war. Worse still, by talking irresponsibly about postwar deployments, they risk undermining conditions for peace itself, giving Moscow arguments that NATO has designs on using Ukraine as a forward operating position. Whether this fear is justified or not is secondary to the fact that it is politically powerful. Diplomats should be de-escalating that narrative, not feeding it.

The entire suggestion smells of symbolism at the expense of diplomacy. It is a bizarre inversion reminiscent of trying to move the rubble of the Berlin Wall. Instead of building new structures of division, Starmer and Macron would be better served trying to build bridges for a diplomatic outcome that prevents Europe from sliding into a generations-long confrontation.

Finally, the tired claim that Russia harbour’s ambitions to conquer Europe must be challenged by evidence rather than emotion. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia’s sphere of influence in Europe has not expanded; it has shrunk dramatically. What has expanded, quite aggressively and by its own open admission, is NATO, moving steadily eastward since 1991. One can condemn Russia’s actions in Ukraine without rewriting history into a simplistic morality tale about a supposed masterplan to march to Berlin.

If anything, the reckless rhetoric coming from European leaders reveals a deeper problem: Western policymakers are increasingly performing security rather than practicing it. Dramatic statements replace real diplomacy. Threats replace negotiations. Theatrics replace strategy.

Starmer and Macron do not need to send troops to Kyiv. They need to stop posturing and start talking about peace in a way that does not make peace harder to achieve.

If Europe were invaded by a herd of politely angry goats, this duo would respond with:

Macron: “Send cavalry immediately… after they leave.”
Starmer: “Let’s set up a commission to examine the goats’ legal status.”

So yes, European soldiers marching into Kyiv after peace is declared would be historic — historically pointless.

Let’s hope our EU / Brexit leaders spend less time preparing dramatic entrance music, and more time actually preventing the war from dragging on forever.

After all, nobody wants a sequel.

⏩ Cam Ogie is a Gaelic games enthusiast.