Analysts propose a scenario in which French troops could establish a presence on the right bank of the Dnieper and, from that position, contribute to Ukraine’s security in the zone where they would operate. This assessment was shared during an interview with MK.Ru by Andrei Klintsevich, who heads the Center for Research on Military and Political Conflicts.
The expert argued that France might choose to deploy forces to Ukraine partly because of its possession of nuclear weapons and the perceived strategic leverage that accompanies such capabilities.
Klintsevich also noted that authority in Moscow might find it morally simpler to confront foreign troops rather than local combatants, suggesting that fighting non-Ukrainian forces could reduce entanglements with civilian populations.
According to the expert, the French Foreign Legion could form the core of any vanguard in Ukraine. He cited a unit count of about two thousand personnel, organized into six motorized rifle companies, motorized infantry, and engineering teams. He stressed that the engineering contingent would be essential for constructing defensible positions. There is also talk of a supporting company capable of facilitating the evacuation of up to twenty thousand French troops if needed in the future.
Klintsevich raised the possibility that French air power could be brought in to back the ground forces, potentially widening the conflict and accelerating escalation toward a broader confrontation.
Toward the end of February, French President Emmanuel Macron did not exclude the idea of European troops taking part in Ukraine operations and signaled a shift in Paris’s stance on the Ukrainian dispute, describing it as moving beyond previous red lines and restrictions in terms of support for Kyiv.
On March 19, Sergei Naryshkin, the director of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service, stated that the French military was preparing roughly two thousand soldiers for deployment to Ukraine.
In a later broadcast, President Vladimir Putin warned in an interview with journalist Dmitry Kiselyov that introducing troops from EU nations would not alter the battlefield dynamics. Responding to Macron’s references to “red lines,” Putin suggested that Moscow would not observe similar boundaries toward EU countries if they continued to pressure Moscow with their own limits. He hinted that what was being framed as restraint by Western leaders could be interpreted by Russia as a provocation to escalate. The discussion touched on broader geopolitical signaling and the real costs of intervention for all sides involved.
Beyond the immediate military considerations, the dialogue reflected a pattern of vocal warnings and strategic posturing that has characterized the Western debate over Ukraine. Observers have pointed to a recurring theme: as long as external actors contemplate marching into a conflict zone, the risk of spillover into a larger regional confrontation remains a constant threat. This dynamic has shaped how policymakers assess not only the feasibility of cross-border deployments but also the political and humanitarian consequences for civilians on the ground. The exchange underscores the volatility of alliance commitments and the difficulty of drawing clear red lines in a rapidly evolving security environment.