French President Emmanuel Macron's push to deploy troops to Ukraine could yet prove the first domino of an official NATO military presence in the war-torn country, even while Russia's grinding frontline assaults and nationwide bombing campaign continue.

The French leader said in late February that "nothing was excluded" with regard to officially putting NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine, though his American and German allies were quick to explicitly, and repeatedly, exclude that possibility.

Macron has subsequently maintained his position, even garnering backing from eastern NATO states. This week, the commander of the French ground forces said his troops were "ready" for any deployment, suggesting that 20,000 soldiers could be prepared within 30 days. Paris, General Pierre Schill said, could even command a combined allied force of 60,000.

Macron is emerging as one of Europe's most assertive leaders on Ukraine, seeking to shake off his past efforts to maintain and revive contact with the Kremlin despite President Vladimir Putin's repeated efforts to undermine the continent's security balance.

Nicolas Tenzer, a non-resident senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis and the author of Notre Guerre, told Newsweek that Macron's pivot is "very sincere." The president, he added, "considers that the stance adopted by Germany, but also the U.S., is certainly not enough, and that we have to take the lead."

"What he has stated very clearly in my view is basically that there can be no red lines anymore," Tenzer added. "Right now, there is absolutely no taboo."

"If we have some NATO troops in Ukraine, it will be a way to deter Russia. Because certainly, Russia wouldn't take the risk to strike NATO troops, because then of all the countries of those troops could activate Article 5 of the NATO Treaty and it will be certainly too dangerous for Russia."

"Those troops would come with their own anti-missile shields, of course," Tenzer continued. "That will also be very helpful for the Ukrainian people."

Such a deployment has significant risk. Recalling the experience of United Nations peacekeepers in the 1992-1995 Bosnian War, Tenzer said that the Blue Helmets, as UN troops are known, "were basically struck without any means to retaliate. That's not acceptable. Certainly, they would have to retaliate if that happened."

French and NATO troops could be drafted in to help with offensive operations, though without being on the contact line.

Forces could use "missile systems—fired from the ground, or from the sea, or from the air with the fighter jets—without any engagement on the field, with boots on the ground," Tenzer said. "We could give more assistance to the Ukrainians in in-depth fighting and striking of Russian forces."

The fifth and final option—which Tenzer said "for the moment is certainly not what Macron has in mind, and certainly it won't be acceptable right now"—would be direct combat involvement.

Boots on the ground

As with any hint of deeper NATO involvement in Ukraine, Macron's remarks have perturbed the Kremlin. Foreign Intelligence Service head Sergey Naryshkin claimed—without providing evidence—this week that Paris is planning to send a 2,000-strong contingent to Ukraine. The French Foreign Ministry quickly denied Naryshkin's report.

"It will thus become a legitimate priority target for attacks by the Russian armed forces," the spy chief said. "This means that it will suffer the fate of all the French who have ever come to the Russian world with a sword."

Ivan Stupak, a former officer in the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and now an adviser to the Ukrainian parliament's national security, defense and intelligence committee, told Newsweek he does not expect any French troops at the front.

"I am totally sure that French soldiers, in the case of deployment, will not take part in combat operations," he explained. Rather, French troops could be deployed to tense border areas with Belarus and the pro-Kremlin breakaway Moldovan region of Transnistria.

"French soldiers would be very useful as border guards," Stupak said. "In this case, the Ukrainian general stuff could release some number of Ukrainian soldiers from the border line and deploy them to the frontline, and some equipment."

French Foreign Minister Stephane Sejourne told lawmakers in February that any troops deployed would not be sent into combat. Rather, they would "respond to very specific needs, I am thinking in particular of mine clearance, cyber defense, the production of weapons on site, on Ukrainian territory."

Stupak said French troops deployed to the country could gain much-needed experience. "Now, French soldiers have no military experience, I mean real experience in modern warfare," he said. "But at this point they will have experience with real trenches, with real drones over their heads, real minefields, real metal hedgehogs, barbed wire, and so on."

"So, why not? It could be very useful for French soldiers and also for Ukrainian soldiers."

Weapon repair crews, expert advisors, and other logistical support staff, Stupak added, would be welcome. "We very much need specialists in such areas," he said. But training missions would be less valuable, Stupak argued. "What could you teach Ukrainian soldiers who have been fighting for more than two years?"

Putting French—or any other allied NATO—troops along the front would risk direct confrontation with Russian forces. Even in key cities close to the front like Kharkiv, Dnipro, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, and Odesa, the danger of Russian artillery and missile strikes is constant.

The risk, Stupak suggested, would not be worthwhile. "Just imagine some number of French soldiers died," he said. "What's next? Will the French president announce war against Russia? No. Will they activate Article 5? No. Will President Macron send a new batch of French soldiers to replace those who died? No."

Still, a French deployment might set a precedent, and make it easier for other nations to follow suit. "It could be the first domino," Stupak said.

Any French military grouping could also serve as a cover for intelligence officers and special forces units to deploy with less risk. "You don't need several hundred intelligence officers," Stupak said. "A dozen is more than enough."

Keeping Putin guessing

Macron's intentional "strategic ambiguity" leaves all options open, at least theoretically. "I'm choosing not to tell you the specifics of what France can and will do, because I would otherwise weaken the efficiency of aid and support to Ukraine," the president said in a television interview earlier this month.

Tenzer said Paris is unlikely to proceed alone. "There must be four, five, or six other countries that have the same mission," he said. Among the current more likely candidates would be the Baltic states, Poland, the Czech Republic, and perhaps some Nordic nations.

Tenzer set out five options. The first, as Sejourne detailed, would be in support and advisory roles. The second would be an official mission to help define targets for British-French Storm Shadow/SCALP cruise missiles and maintain key military equipment, including the Western fighter jets that are expected to arrive this year.

The third would be riskier. "If we do not immediately have Ukraine in NATO, then we could have NATO in Ukraine," he said.