Cables From The Diplomatic Frontlines - NATO leadership raises alarm and Poland becomes first country to legitimate Macron’s NATO ground troops remarks.

British FM raises the stakes.

• You know things are dire when the characteristically subdued British diplomats speak in the following terms:

  
  I'm in Kyiv to raise the alarm to the democratic world - we must make sure Ukraine wins this war. The UK has stepped up to do more than ever, with our largest military support package to date. Every nation must now do the same and ensure freedom triumphs over tyranny.

• This was the BritishForeign Minister Grant Shapps.

• And given the conditions on the ground, it is more than warranted and really, belated.

• Avdiivka fell after months of failed grinding assaults and at a cost of hundreds of hardware like tanks/armored vehicles and aircraft, and thousands of casualties (in total: 47,186 troops, 364 tanks and 748 armored fighting vehicles).

• But future towns may fall more easily - Avdiivka was well-defended, with certain defensive fixtures going back 10 years ago (to the original start date of this conflict in 2014).

• The British foreign minister’s alarm is therefore spot on (even though, as always, belated) and comes at a time of a new report that suggests Russia being on track to produce 3x artillery shells as the US and EU combined.

• But that was not the only noteworthy development of the past few days: by normalizing Macron’s increasingly assertive rhetoric, Poland did something far more consequential..

Poland legitimates Macron’s “NATO ground troops’’ comment.

• Now, we have previously discussed the major risks that emanate from the French President, Emmanuel Macron’s remarks that nothing was off the table in making sure that Russia could not win in Ukraine: including NATO “ground troops” in Ukraine.

• The risks are significant, and they could (among other things) involve the following: 1) granting a propaganda win for the Kremlin - confirming their narratives, and help Putin rally his (otherwise, increasingly demotivated) people behind a larger, more threatening enemy (an entire NATO); 2) Strengthening the argument of the right-wing fringe that NATO leaders are dragging us into a major conventional war with Russia - with the increasing possibility of a nuclear escalation, and in the process scare-off the average citizens and thus, reduce Western public support for Ukraine; 3) Actually creating risks of a nuclear escalation, and 4) Incentivizing Russia’s rogue allies like North Korea and Iran to intensify their support to Russia and help Putin finish-off the job before NATO can get involved and defeat their most significant partner in resisting the West.

• There are of course some significant upsides too - Macron hoped to (not an exhaustive list): 1) Convince the Western public to continue delivering for Ukraine, and absorb the much lesser sacrifices right now, in order to avoid bigger ones (threat of a conventional confrontation with Russia) 2) Help Biden make a similar argument back home: “if we don’t help Ukraine now, things will get out of hand”; 3) Shift the Overton window on acceptable discourse and guarantee a minimum level of risk-taking from allied states (ideally, ending meaningless hesitancy about no-brainer decisions like provision of Taurus missiles to Ukraine); 4) Signaling to Russia that the balance of wills/resolve isn’t as lopsided as Putin hopes, and that if Putin doesn’t lessen his maximalist war aims, he will face significant obstacles on his way.

• Time will tell whether this was a prudent gambit, but as of right now, risks seem to be too high in return for uncertain/unclear upside.

• In the meantime however, the best short-term outcome for Macron would have been that other NATO allies aligned with his rhetoric.