Emmanuel Macron knows how to make headlines. But was the French president, who once called NATO clinically dead, really serious when he said earlier this week that Europe should not rule out sending ground troops to Ukraine to prevent Russia from winning the war?
Was it a trial balloon, a spontaneous statement without prior agreement with allies, or the beginning of a real strategic debate?
As always, Macron's bazooka hit several targets: forcing European partners to consider how far they are willing to go to prevent a Russian victory; pressured the US to continue arming Ukraine, rattled Russian President Vladimir Putin, retaliated against German criticism of France's modest aid contribution to Kiev; and it is also a kind of attempt to catch domestic opponents off guard in the upcoming campaign for the elections to the European Parliament.
First of all, the French president wants the mantle of leader of European and Western support for Ukraine at a time when American aid is hindered by the Republican blockade in Congress on behalf of Donald Trump before the US presidential election campaign.
First the facts: Macron spoke on Monday after chairing a summit of allied nations supporting Ukraine, which focused mainly on ways to speed up arms and ammunition deliveries to Kiev. The leaders discussed the possibility of Western military forces playing a role in Ukraine, though not in combat, several participants said.
With polls showing him lagging badly behind the National Rally ahead of June's European elections, Macron may feel that his party's best hope is to wrap itself in the Ukrainian flag in defense of European values, while sidelining its opponents with Russia.
In the final press conference, he sent two strong (and new) messages. The first: We are convinced that the defeat of Russia is necessary for stability and security in Europe." And the second: "We are determined to do whatever is necessary for as long as it takes" to help Ukraine prevail.
His mention of ground troops came in response to a question about a statement by Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fitz, a well-known Ukraine skeptic, who said a confidential preparatory document "that sends chills down the spine" included the possibility of some EU and NATO allies sending ground troops. Macron's response was that the topic was discussed "freely and directly". He added: "today there is no consensus for sending ground forces in an official, recognized and approved way. However, in a dynamic situation, nothing should be ruled out. We will do everything necessary so that Russia does not win this war".
His comment implied that there are already Western military personnel in Ukraine in secret locations. The German chancellor, Olaf Scholz, said enough when he refused to send Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine because it would require the help and presence of German soldiers.
It is an open secret in military circles that the US, Great Britain and France have active special forces in Ukraine primarily in intelligence and training missions, as well as in the field of cyber defense. Military advisers and civilian subcontractors are also present in smaller numbers to help maintain and support Western weapons systems, and will be needed more when Ukraine finally gets its long-promised F-16 bombers.
The idea of deploying Western combat troops or aircraft to the front remains a taboo subject as it would bring them into direct conflict with Russia, potentially sparking a third world war.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov immediately warned that in that case, war between Russia and NATO would not only be a possibility but a "certainty".
Western allies including the US, Germany, the Netherlands and even Poland, a leading anti-Russia hawk, immediately said they had no intention of sending troops to Ukraine, suggesting they were unnerved by Macron's comment. Kiev hastily announced that it was looking for faster delivery of weapons and ammunition, not soldiers.
German Deputy Chancellor Robert Habeck hinted at one explanation for Macron's statement, when he retorted: "If I may give advice - give more weapons." Berlin and Paris, supposedly the closest partners, are engaging in an increasingly brutal game of blaming who failed Ukraine.
Scholz called on other European countries to follow Germany's example, citing data compiled by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, according to which Germany provided 17,7 billion euros worth of military equipment as of mid-January this year, the second largest figure behind the US. while France gave only 640 million euros. France disputes those numbers and claims that the military aid it provided between 2022 and 2023 is worth 3,2 billion euros, with up to another 3 billion euros promised for this year.
Macron mocked the Germans, without calling them out directly, when he said that "many of those who say "never, never" today are the same ones who two years ago said "never never tanks, never never planes, never never missiles long range. Let me remind you that some people at this same table two years ago were saying "we will send sleeping bags and helmets". All European leaders should be modest enough and admit that they are often 6 to 12 months late, he said.
It is typical of Macron that when he changes his position he often exaggerates in the opposite direction, partly in an effort to erase memories of his previous position. When it came to Ukraine, it was he who insisted on talks with Putin long after Moscow launched a full-scale invasion and who argued that Russia must not be humiliated even as its artillery bombards Ukrainian cities.
The French leader made amends in a speech in Bratislava last year, saying that Western European leaders should have listened to their Central European counterparts, who have long warned of Russia's aggressive intentions. Now he went a step further and tried to position himself as the main European opponent of Putin.
This may help him on the domestic political scene - where he is unpopular and does not have an absolute majority in parliament - to present his far-right and far-left opponents, Marine Le Pen and Jean-Luc Mélenchon, as Putin apologists susceptible to Russian propaganda. Le Pen, whose then-National Front party took a Russian bank loan in 2014 and who enjoyed photo ops with Putin during the 2017 presidential campaign, opposed sanctions on oil and gas and arms supplies. Mélenchon accused Macron of irresponsibly leading France towards war between nuclear powers.
Since, according to polls, he is lagging badly behind Le Pen's National Rally ahead of the European elections in June, Macon may feel that his party's best hope is to wrap itself in the Ukrainian flag in defense of European values, while aligning its opponents with Russia.
However, even a seasoned statesman like former foreign minister Ibero Vedrin criticized the president for the "nonsensical" comment, rejected by his European partners, which he said would send Putin a signal of weakness rather than strengthen European resolve against Russia.
So, was Macron wrong to raise the issue? It doesn't have to mean. There are many possible roles that Western forces could play in Ukraine beyond combat: operating satellite communications terminals, demining, training new Ukrainian recruits, repairing and maintaining weapons, supporting intelligence activities and cyber security, protecting weapons factories, filling gaps for Ukrainian forces in medical and food services to free up more soldiers for the front.
More broadly, Macron was right to raise the strategic question of how far the West is willing to go to prevent Russia from winning. Let's hope it sparks a real debate about how to make sure Ukraine wins.
Text taken from "The Guardian"
Translation: N. Bogetić
Bonus video:
