Vitaly Ryumshin Militant Macron led the West on a winding path 03/04/2024, 08:00

Last week’s main news anchor was Emmanuel Macron. The French President “did not consider” sending NATO troops to Ukraine, and with this statement he created a sensation that horrified France’s allies and confused everyone.

Western countries have been racing for a week to see who can more convincingly deny their intention to participate in a potential intervention. Moreover, even the most notorious “hawks” such as Poland do this, but for them such statements should be like manna from heaven. The more cautious ones don’t even know where to hide. Olaf Scholz was so excited that he accidentally “surrendered” the British and French military who were already in Ukraine and were helping the Ukrainian Armed Forces launch Storm Shadow missiles.

There is no visible enthusiasm in France either; Almost 70% of the country’s population strongly opposed sending troops to Ukraine. Macron’s government also doesn’t seem to know how to recover from the scandal. French ministers either support the president or deny him. Authorities are sending conflicting signals to the media. Some say Macron wants to “scare” Vladimir Putin with “strategic uncertainty”. Others are told that Paris is seriously planning to send special forces to Ukraine.

Macron himself does not say anything intelligible. So far we only know that his every word has been “weighed, considered and verified.” Maybe it is. But “what was that?” Comments not responding. And now many people want to buy it.

There are several versions of what Macron is trying to achieve. I suggest you review the main ones.

First: NATO really plans to send troops to Ukraine, and Macron was simply given the role of ringleader to “warm up” the public. On the one hand, it makes sense. In the West, they are very worried about the defeat of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, so they put all their cards on the table.

At the same time, the alliance cannot help but understand that a military conflict with Russia is completely suicidal. You can argue all you want about whether Russian officials were bluffing when they hinted at a nuclear attack. However, the nuclear weapons factor cannot be ignored in any case. Judging by the reaction of Western leaders, they are well aware of this risk. And more importantly, they still have the instinct to protect themselves.

So I would safely reject this version.

The second version looks more realistic. Perhaps Macron really hoped to scare Russia with “uncertainty”. They now say that the West will publicly leave all doors open, that Moscow should keep the risks in mind and refrain from taking some steps towards Ukraine.

In a more radical version, the idea would be to send a limited contingent of troops to Ukraine whose mere presence would create “strategic uncertainty”. In other words, the Russian Federation will face a choice: either risk escalating tensions by striking the locations of Western troops, or prevent conflict by creating inconvenient “safe zones” in Ukraine where bombs will not fly.

Frankly, in Macron’s mind, Russia should choose the second option. But for this the Kremlin needs to make sure that the West is ready to escalate tensions. And in the face of uncertain reactions from European countries, everything could turn out exactly the opposite. Western countries will send troops who will not make a difference at the front but will voluntarily expose themselves to Russian bombs. And the military’s deaths will be blamed on politicians who unnecessarily antagonize them.

So who needs this? So how will this prevent Ukraine from losing? Uncertain.

Third option: Macron escalates ahead of European Parliament elections. The vote will take place in June and the results indicate that up to a quarter of the seats could go to moderate and radical Eurosceptics. It is difficult to combat them using domestic political initiatives. Mainstream liberals like Macron are advocating highly unpopular “green” reforms in the EU, which have already led to mass protests by farmers. For this reason, the focus is on helping Ukraine, which is safer in the elections.

If the goal was to inspire voters and gain their support, this clearly failed. Europeans were terrified at the prospect of being drawn into large-scale hostilities.

And instead of support, Macron was expected to receive the laurels of a crazy man who tried to play the “military leader of Europe”. This is understandable. It’s one thing to observe a large-scale gunfight from a safe distance. It’s completely different to fit in there ourselves.

The realization that one is on the brink of a precipice could cost Macron’s political partners dearly. Frightened Europeans in the elections will vote for Eurosceptics who advocate peace negotiations in Ukraine. Hawkish politicians may also reconsider their views and take a more moderate stance.

Clearly, this was not the outcome the French President was counting on. But if it all comes down to him in the end, it will be perhaps the biggest diplomatic and media fiasco of Macron’s entire presidency.

The author expresses his personal opinion, which may not coincide with the position of the editors.