So I’ve got to ask the question….and just narrowly answer the question…what would get US troop to enter Ukraine? And separately what would get NATO at large to enter Ukraine? I feel like the answers aren’t the same.
I don't think either thing is within the realm of possibility.
It's virtually impossible for NATO to admit a member state that is currently fending off an invasion. Even in ordinary times, that's completely disqualifying; previous domestic and near-abroad conflicts have been disqualifying for past candidates.
Outside of that, NATO will NOT send troops "just because". It's too dangerous to get nuclear powers anywhere within shooting distance of each other. And there's no leverage Russia holds that could tempt NATO to do so, outside of... invading NATO itself, presumably in the Baltics. In that case, Ukraine would merely be the Southern Front of the Cisuralic Theater of Operations in World War III.
Outside of *that*, the only way that NATO or the US send any troops to Ukraine is as part of a UN mission. Which only happens if the UN General Assembly passes an amendment (2/3 majority!) kicking Russia off the UNSC P5 to eliminate its veto, and then securing either an abstention or "Yea" vote from China to order an intervention. That's like seven steps down the road from now, and a whole barrel of "ifs" as well.
The real question, IMO, is how hard NATO members buckle down on giving weapons to the Ukrainians. They've shown a willingness to fight, which is great (although opens NATO up to criticism of "being willing to fight to the last Ukrainian" in the long term), so we really just need to ship them missiles and shit, mostly through (NATO member!) Poland since Russia could interdict NATO shipments in the Black Sea (forcing NATO to risk WWIII). MANPADS and ATMs can help level the playing field and force the Russians to start fighting dirty, which they've actually been pretty reluctant to do - reports seem to indicate that invading regular-army (IE not the irregulars who have already been fighting in Ukraine for 8 years) Russian soldiers have mostly been told that this would be a cakewalk, and are horrified by the thought of killing even Ukrainian SOLDIERS (not JUST civilians), because they'd rather simply accept their surrenders.
The only risk there is that Putin, seeing a losing situation, starts to flail and actually considers dumb moves like invading Poland or the Baltics; or maybe just snaps up Georgia or all the post-Soviet Central Asian kleptocracies, knowing that NATO cares even less about those countries than it does Ukraine, but would still totally piss off NATO to have to let him keep expanding on his conquering spree.
So I’ve got to ask the question….and just narrowly answer the question…what would get US troop to enter Ukraine? And separately what would get NATO at large to enter Ukraine? I feel like the answers aren’t the same.
I don't think either thing is within the realm of possibility.
It's virtually impossible for NATO to admit a member state that is currently fending off an invasion. Even in ordinary times, that's completely disqualifying; previous domestic and near-abroad conflicts have been disqualifying for past candidates.
Outside of that, NATO will NOT send troops "just because". It's too dangerous to get nuclear powers anywhere within shooting distance of each other. And there's no leverage Russia holds that could tempt NATO to do so, outside of... invading NATO itself, presumably in the Baltics. In that case, Ukraine would merely be the Southern Front of the Cisuralic Theater of Operations in World War III.
Outside of *that*, the only way that NATO or the US send any troops to Ukraine is as part of a UN mission. Which only happens if the UN General Assembly passes an amendment (2/3 majority!) kicking Russia off the UNSC P5 to eliminate its veto, and then securing either an abstention or "Yea" vote from China to order an intervention. That's like seven steps down the road from now, and a whole barrel of "ifs" as well.
The real question, IMO, is how hard NATO members buckle down on giving weapons to the Ukrainians. They've shown a willingness to fight, which is great (although opens NATO up to criticism of "being willing to fight to the last Ukrainian" in the long term), so we really just need to ship them missiles and shit, mostly through (NATO member!) Poland since Russia could interdict NATO shipments in the Black Sea (forcing NATO to risk WWIII). MANPADS and ATMs can help level the playing field and force the Russians to start fighting dirty, which they've actually been pretty reluctant to do - reports seem to indicate that invading regular-army (IE not the irregulars who have already been fighting in Ukraine for 8 years) Russian soldiers have mostly been told that this would be a cakewalk, and are horrified by the thought of killing even Ukrainian SOLDIERS (not JUST civilians), because they'd rather simply accept their surrenders.
The only risk there is that Putin, seeing a losing situation, starts to flail and actually considers dumb moves like invading Poland or the Baltics; or maybe just snaps up Georgia or all the post-Soviet Central Asian kleptocracies, knowing that NATO cares even less about those countries than it does Ukraine, but would still totally piss off NATO to have to let him keep expanding on his conquering spree.