Macron tries to disrupt Russia and provokes allies
With its jerks unexpected statement that sending Western troops to Ukraine “should not be ruled out,” President Emmanuel Macron of France has broken a taboo, fueling debate, sowing consternation among allies and forcing a reckoning over the future of Europe.
For a controversial leader who hates lazy thinking, longs for a Europe with military strength and likes to be in the spotlight, this was typical enough. After all, it was Mr. Macron who in 2019 described NATO as suffering “brain dead” and who warned Europe last year not to become America’s strategic ‘vassal’.
But making bold statements is one thing, but patiently putting the pieces in place to achieve those goals is another. Mr Macron has often favored provocation over preparation, even though he is often right, such as in arguing since 2017 that Europe must strengthen its defense industry to gain greater strategic weight.
This week was no exception. By rushing forward without building consensus among allies, Macron may have done more to illustrate Western divisions and the limits of how far NATO allies are willing to go in Ukraine’s defense than achieving the “strategic ambiguity” that he believes is necessary to retain the president. Russia’s Vladimir V. Putin gambles.
Macron’s provocation appeared partly a search for relevance at a time when he is isolated at home and has proven to be a marginal figure in the war between Israel and Hamas. France has played a central role in coordinating European Union aid to Ukraine, including a $54 billion program to support Kiev approved this month, but its own aid contribution lags behind Germany, Britain and the United States.
Yet for Macron, the plea for “acting differently” in Ukraine, as he put it on Monday after a meeting in Paris of leaders and officials from 27, mainly European, countries, is overwhelming.
From the start of Russia’s massive invasion of Ukraine two years ago, the West has sought to contain the conflict in Ukraine and prevent a shooting war between Russia and NATO that could escalate into a nuclear standoff. Hence the hesitation of his allies.
But the containment has clear limitations, leaving Ukraine struggling to hold the line against a larger Russian force. Russia has recently taken territory on the Eastern Front; Ukraine does not have the weapons and ammunition it needs; uncertainty surrounding U.S. support for the war in an election year; and no one knows where an emboldened Mr. Putin will stop. Given all this, more of the same does not seem very serious for France.
“Russia’s defeat is indispensable for the security and stability of Europe,” Macron said, abandoning the cautious “Russia must not win” formulation favored by the United States and Germany.
Behind the French president’s words was annoyance at the apparent strategic impunity that the West offers Putin.
“The positive thing is that Macron is trying to introduce a balance of power, and therefore discouragement, with Russia – tell Putin that we are ready for anything, so you should worry, we will not give up,” Nicole Bacharan said. a social scientist and expert on the United States at Sciences Po University.
But she also pointed to a cumulative problem for Mr Macron: the lack of credibility for a leader who has embarked on a tortuous wartime strategic journey.
It started with his attempt to include Russia in a new European “security architecture” in 2019, despite Russia’s annexation of Crimea five years earlier. This was followed by his statement in 2022 that “we must not humiliate Russia,” and the long exercise in futility of repeated phone calls to Mr Putin in the months following the Russian leader’s full-scale invasion.
Now it has reached its peak with the French president at the forefront of the resistance against Putin, and in exuberant consultation with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, his former critic. Mr. Zelensky praised Mr. Macron’s idea on Wednesday, saying such initiatives are “good for the whole world.”
No wonder some Europeans rub their eyes. “He provides the impetus, but people don’t feel like they can trust him to be consistent,” Ms. Bacharan said. Even states that agree with Macron’s analysis may hesitate because of his volatility.
His openness to sending troops was certainly unexpected. In the short term at least, the result appears to have been more strategic bewilderment than “strategic ambiguity.”
His deployment gave Russia a picture of allied division, as countries from the United States to Sweden rejected troop deployments. It also underlined Franco-German differences over the war, as Chancellor Olaf Scholz excluded not only German troops but also any “ground troops from European countries or NATO.”
“A disaster,” said the influential German magazine Der Spiegel about the differences between the two leaders.
Macron’s mocking denunciation of repeated delays and reversals in Western policy toward Ukraine – “never, never tanks, never, never planes, never, never long-range missiles” – seemed particularly provocative for Germany, as France was among those who said no before you say yes .
When France and Germany disagree, Europe tends to come to a standstill, exactly what Macron does not want in his now nearly seven-year quest for greater European “strategic autonomy” from the United States.
Macron’s vision for an independent European defense seems more relevant than ever as Europeans worry about the possible return to the White House of Donald J. Trump – and with him, according to Mr Trump himself, a possible nod to Russia for its worst to perform deeds. Ukraine’s heavy reliance on the United States for weapons has underscored Europe’s continued dependence on Washington as NATO’s 75th anniversary approaches this year.
But because frontline states with Russia want America’s continued presence, Macron has found it difficult to move Europe toward greater independence.
At home, where his popularity has waned and he does not have an outright majority in parliament, Macron has faced outrage over an apparent policy change decided without any national debate, a recurring problem within a highly centralized, top-down presidency.
From the far left to the far right, lawmakers condemned what Oliver Faure, a socialist, called “the folly” of a possible war with Russia. Jordan Bardella, the chairman of the far-right National Rally party, which has been close to Moscow, accused Macron of “losing his sang-froid.”
Yet no one has answered the fundamental question Macron has asked: how to stop Russia’s advance and a Ukrainian defeat that would threaten freedom and open societies across Europe.
“Macron ultimately understood that dialogue with Russia would lead nowhere, and the increasing cyber attacks on France and other states convinced him that Putin will not stop in Ukraine,” said Nicolas Tenzer, a political scientist who has long advocated for the broadcast of Western troops to Ukraine. . “The credibility of NATO and Europe itself is at risk.”
In this sense, with Russia making progress and a $60 billion US aid package to Ukraine being held up in Congress by Republican opposition, Macron may have forced a necessary reassessment, especially given the possibility of a Trump re-election.
“Should we delegate our future to the American voter?” Mr. Macron asked. “My answer is no, whatever this voter decides.”
Elaborating on Macron’s statement despite the furor it has caused, a senior official close to him said on Tuesday: “We console Mr Putin with his impression that we are weak when we write checks, make statements, send artillery and produce shells, but above all they do not want to take any risks themselves.”
At the same time, said the official, who requested anonymity in line with French diplomatic protocol, France remains committed to avoiding “a confrontation between the Alliance and Russia.”
What exactly France has in mind is unclear, but it seems likely that troops will be sent for purposes that “do not cross the threshold of belligerence,” as Foreign Minister Stéphane Séjourné put it to the National Assembly.
Among these purposes, demining, training and assistance with local weapons production seem possible, all with the aim of defending against further Russian advances, but without participating in any offensive Ukrainian action.
Of course, Russia will define Western “belligerence” on its own terms. The Kremlin has already warned that Macron has introduced “a very important new element” that could lead to a direct clash between Russian forces and NATO.
If Western troops were ever on the ground in Ukraine in numbers, a Russian missile or rocket that kills one of them could theoretically trigger Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, the cornerstone of the Alliance, which says that a armed attack on any member may take place. will be considered an attack against them all.”
It is precisely this path to escalation that President Biden and Chancellor Scholz have wanted to avoid since the start of the war.
The result is that Ukraine survived, but did not prevail. For Mr Macron, that does not seem to be enough.
“Anything is possible if it is useful to achieve our goal,” he said, adding that Europe must take action because Ukraine’s fate “depends on us and that is what we must do.”