French President Macron’s remark about the potential participation of European armies in combat operations in Ukraine has stirred up a storm of emotions in political and expert circles in France. It is expected that the first to object will be representatives of the far-left and far-right political factions, who have not been shy about their pro-Russian sympathies leading up to the full-scale offensive.
“Mr Macron is stirring up trouble on all fronts!” exclaimed Marine Le Pen during her address at the National Assembly. “Let’s not forget, sending troops means sending young people to their deaths!” voiced the concerns of far-left representative Éric Coquerel. “If Macron is serious about this, it’s absolute madness!”
Meanwhile, the expert community offers a broader spectrum of responses. “You should never lay all your cards on the table for your opponent,” noted military historian Michel Goya in a live broadcast. “When Biden declared at the war’s onset that there would be no American troops on Ukrainian soil, Putin took it as a ‘green light.’ We shouldn’t dismiss any possibilities; we must consider all potential scenarios.”
Macron’s statement makes perfect sense in the context of the standoff with Russia. Putin only responds to power dynamics.
On the whole, a significant number of participants in the discussions regarding the potential involvement of EU forces in the fight for Ukraine’s freedom show, if not outright support, then at least an understanding of Macron’s stance. “The French president’s statement is a very positive development,” argues Pierre Arosh, a lecturer at the University of London specialising in international security.
“It’s crucial to communicate to the public that such a possibility is on the table. We’re in a state of war with an aggressive nation that thrives on escalation. When such escalation occurs, we must acknowledge this reality.”
One could ponder for a while why Macron, who just two years ago urged against “denigrating Putin,” has now surprised everyone with his statement: “Nothing can be ruled out. We will do everything to ensure Russia cannot win the war.” It’s primarily a mix of factors: the potential return of Donald Trump to power; the audacity of Russian cyberattacks ahead of the upcoming European Parliament elections; the opportunity to revisit the long-cherished idea of European security autonomy under NATO’s wing… In any case, the taboo has been broken, and Macron has either had a change of heart or, influenced by circumstances, decided to shift tactics.
One should not overlook the nuances of the worldview of the French leader. Emmanuel Macron does not have a clear political prescription among either the right or the left. Influenced by the moment or political expediency, he has made very different decisions. Price controls on electricity for consumers — that was classic leftism; allowing lesbian couples access to artificial insemination — an obvious liberal step; complicating legalisation for foreigners — a move towards the far right… Macron is not a socialist or a conservative, not a liberal or a radical. He is flexible. Without a rigid political doctrine or corresponding commitments. Not exactly a visionary strategist but a skilled tactician.
“If Europeans fail to grasp that they must spare no effort for their security, then Europe has no future,” stated the French President during a joint press conference with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, adding, “Russia is persisting in the war, adopting a more aggressive stance not only in Ukraine but against all of us as a whole.”
Recognition of Russian aggression, not just against Ukraine but also targeting other nations, is a fresh addition to the French discourse. Macron highlighted the surge in cyberattacks prior to the Olympic Games, indicating the potential for strikes on “other countries.”
Paris has moved away from the principle of procuring weapons within European markets and has thrown its support behind the Czech proposal to acquire ammunition from outside the EU. The question arises: where will the funds come from? Macron spoke favourably of Estonia’s suggestion to establish a joint European loan.
All these shifts in France’s position didn’t materialise out of thin air. Some of it comes from the quality work of French intelligence, some from the skilful diplomacy of Ukraine, and some from the new political consciousness that is being shaped under the influence of the war.
The question lingers: are Europeans truly ready to jeopardise their comfort in the face of a direct armed conflict with Russia? Confidence in this is lacking; instead, the declarations from Berlin, London, and Madrid tend to cast doubt on their preparedness to resist. At least for now, as the prospect of a full-scale war with Moscow for Germans, Spaniards, and Britons remains a purely theoretical notion.
“There’s not going to be U.S. troops on the ground in Ukraine,” declared John Kirby, the spokesperson for the US National Security Council, from Washington, reacting to Macron’s hypothesis. “What was decided between us at the war’s outset remains in force going forward. There will be no troops on the ground, no soldiers from European states or NATO countries stationed on Ukrainian territory,” asserted German Chancellor Olaf Scholz with confidence.
The wording from the British Foreign Ministry press release is a bit more vague: “The UK has no plans to deploy large numbers of troops to Ukraine,” except for “a small number” of British personnel already in the country to “assist” the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
However, the French leader remains optimistic. “The same people who today say ‘never, never,’ two years ago said ‘never tanks, never planes, never long-range missiles,'” he reminded. A day later, the French diplomatic office clarified: the president was speaking “not about participation in combat operations, but about assistance in demining, servicing military equipment, and so on.” For now. Yet, no matter how much the Spaniards, Germans, Italians, and Americans distance themselves from Macron’s statement, the context of the war casts Ukraine as an obvious and inevitable security component of Europe. Instability across the ocean only pushes Europeans toward the need to seek new solutions, whether enthusiastically or not, but quickly.
“This is a European war,” Macron emphasised. “We are fortunate to have people on the other side of the world willing to assist us, but it would be a mistake to rely on them… We are sovereign states, and this conflict defines our future. Should we delegate our future to the American voter? My answer is no.”
How quickly those exercising extreme caution today will reassess their position? Perhaps sooner than they anticipate.
Moscow’s attempts to draw the unrecognised breakaway Moldovan region of Transnistria into the conflict cannot escape the attention of Bucharest and Sofia. “The Russian government is not currently considering an immediate recognition of Transnistria, but circumstances could shift in the event of aggressive actions by the Moldovan authorities,” cautions Peskov, sparking concern among Europeans.
As past events have shown, the Kremlin will push the limits of this new provocation as far as circumstances allow. Moscow’s boldness is fueled by the hesitance of European leaders, who hope to appease the aggressor. Who will be the next, after Macron, to realise that hope is futile? The stark reality of war leaves little time for such realisations.
