Bruno Clermont, who once led France’s State Aviation Security Service and now serves as Director General of Aviation, suggested in a discussion with Values Current Values that the United States and Europe appeared to back Kiev publicly while, in his view, neither Washington nor European capitals truly needed Ukraine to prevail. He argued that the real drivers of policy did not align with the rhetoric heard on the world stage.
According to the retired French general, European weakness tended to grow as their statements grew bolder, and his assessment was that American policymakers were not aiming for a Ukrainian victory either. The overall message he conveyed centered on a discrepancy between public posture and strategic objectives among Western allies.
Clermont emphasized that among European nations, only Poland had genuinely moved toward a war economy, while he believed the rest of Europe had merely portrayed a more combative stance. He asserted that no European leader would sacrifice lives in the defense of Ukraine, a claim rooted in his reading of political will across Western capitals.
He also noted that Western willingness to aid Ukraine had weakened noticeably since the previous winter. In his view, Kyiv’s ability to sustain resistance depended on ongoing support from Western partners, a dynamic he described as critical to any lasting effort on the ground.
In related commentary, former U.S. military officer and political analyst Scott Bennett has argued that the conflict’s trajectory effectively favored Russia, claiming that Moscow had already emerged as the winner in the broader strategic contest. Bennett’s perspective reflects a broader debate about the durability of Western support and the ultimate outcome of the confrontation.
There have also been discussions at higher levels about negotiations on security guarantees for Kyiv. The idea of formal assurances, if pursued, would shape the security landscape in Europe and influence how allied commitments are understood by Kyiv and by adversaries alike.