[ad_1]
French President Emmanuel Macron has broken a taboo with a shocking and unexpected statement that Western troops should not be ruled out sending troops to Ukraine, sparking debate, stirring up allies and questioning the future of Europe. I was forced to make a decision.
This was typical enough for a beleaguered leader who hated lazy thinking, admired a militarily powerful Europe, and loved the limelight. After all, it was Mr Macron who said in 2019 that NATO was “brain dead” and last year warned Europe against becoming a strategic “client state” of the United States.
But it’s one thing to make bold declarations; it’s another to be patient and ready to achieve those goals. Macron prefers provocation to preparation, even when he has a point, as he has argued since 2017 that Europe needs to strengthen its defense industry to improve its strategic advantage. There were many things.
This week was no exception. By rushing ahead without forging consensus among allies, Macron has sought to divide the West and NATO allies rather than achieve the “strategic ambiguity” he says is necessary to remain president. It may have helped explain the limits of how aggressive it can be in defending Ukraine. Estimates from Russian President Vladimir V. Putin.
Mr. Macron’s provocation appeared to be a search for relevance at a time when he is isolated at home and seen as a marginal figure in the war between Israel and Hamas. France has played a central role in coordinating European Union aid to Ukraine, including the $54 billion Kiev aid program approved this month, but its own aid contributions lag behind Germany, Britain and the United States. There is.
Still, for Mr. Macron, the case for “acting differently” in Ukraine is overwhelming, as he said Monday after a meeting in Paris that brought together leaders and officials from 27 mostly European countries.
Since Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine two years ago, Western countries have sought to contain the conflict and avoid a shootout between Russia and NATO that could escalate into a nuclear confrontation. His allies therefore hesitated.
But there are clear limits to containment, and Ukraine is struggling to hold the line against the large Russian military. Russia recently occupied territory on the Eastern Front. Ukraine lacks the necessary weapons and ammunition. Uncertainty over U.S. support for war in an election year. And no one knows where the courageous Putin will stop. Considering this, it seems disingenuous for France to do the same.
“Russia’s defeat is essential for the security and stability of Europe,” Macron said, rejecting the cautious approach favored by the United States and Germany that says Russia should not be defeated.
Behind the French president’s words lurks resentment at the apparent strategic impunity given to Mr. Putin by the West.
Nicole Bacalan said: “The good thing is that President Macron is trying to introduce a balance of power with Russia, a dissuasion with Russia. I want them to know that there is no need to worry because we are here and that we will not give up.” Social scientist and American expert at the University of Science Poly.
But she also pointed to a cumulative problem for Mr. Macron: his lack of credibility as a leader who has navigated a tortuous wartime strategic journey.
It began with his attempts in 2019 to involve Russia in a new European “security architecture” despite Russia’s annexation of Crimea five years ago. This was followed by statements in 2022 that “Russia must not be humiliated” and the Russian leader’s lengthy and fruitless repeated phone calls to Putin in the months following the all-out invasion. The practice continued.
Now, it has culminated in the French president becoming the vanguard of the rebellion against Putin, enthusiastically aligning himself with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, a former critic of Putin. Mr Zelenskiy praised Mr Macron’s ideas on Wednesday, saying such efforts were “good for the whole world”.
No wonder some Europeans are rubbing their eyes. “He gives the drive, but people don’t feel like they can trust him to be consistent,” Bakalan said. Even states that agree with Macron’s analysis may balk in the face of his instability.
Indeed, his openness to sending troops was unexpected. The result, at least in the short term, appears to have been more a strategic quandary than a “strategic ambiguity.”
His maneuver gave Russia the impression that its allies were divided, as countries from the United States to Sweden refused to send troops. Differences between Germany and France regarding the war were also highlighted, as Chancellor Olaf Scholz excluded not only German troops but also “ground forces from European countries and NATO.”
Germany’s influential magazine Der Spiegel described the disagreement between the two leaders as a “disaster.”
Mr. Macron’s derisive condemnation of the West’s repeated delays and reversals in its policy toward Ukraine — “never, never tanks, never, never planes, never, never long-range missiles” — has France saying no. This seemed particularly provocative to Germany, as it is one of the countries that has Before you say yes.
Europe tends to stall when France and Germany are at odds, but that’s exactly what Mr. Macron wants in his nearly seven-year quest for greater European “strategic autonomy” from the United States.
With Europeans anxious about Donald J. Trump’s possible return to the White House, Macron’s independent European defense initiative seems more timely than ever, and Trump’s own talk According to the report, it could also encourage Russia to do the worst. . As NATO’s 75th anniversary approaches this year, Ukraine’s heavy dependence on the United States for weapons underscores Europe’s continued dependence on the United States.
But countries on the front lines with Russia want a continued U.S. presence, and Macron is finding it difficult to sway Europe toward greater independence.
Mr. Macron, unpopular at home and without an absolute majority in parliament, faced a backlash against apparent policy shifts decided without public debate, but this was due to a highly centralized top government. It’s a recurring problem throughout Down’s presidency.
Lawmakers from the far left to the far right have criticized socialist Olivier Faure for calling a possible war with Russia a “foolish plan”. Jourdan Bardera, leader of the far-right National Rally party close to Moscow, accused Mr Macron of having “lost his sangroid”.
Still, no one answered the fundamental question posed by Mr. Macron: how to stop Russia’s advance and Ukraine’s defeat, which threatens freedom and open societies across Europe.
Nicola Tenzer, a political scientist who has long advocated sending Western troops to Ukraine, said: “President Macron has finally realized that dialogue with Russia will get him nowhere, and he is planning to launch cyberattacks against France and other countries.” “The increase in numbers has convinced President Putin that it will not stop in Ukraine.” . “NATO’s credibility and Europe itself are at risk.”
In this sense, Mr. Macron is in need, especially given Mr. Trump’s chances of re-election, as Russia advances and the US $60 billion aid package for Ukraine is held up in Congress by Republican opponents. It may have forced a re-evaluation.
“Should we put our future in the hands of American voters?” asked Macron. “No matter what these voters decide, my answer is no.”
Further emphasizing Macron’s comments despite the uproar, a senior official close to Macron said on Tuesday: They also produce shells, but most of all they don’t want to take any risks themselves. ”
At the same time, the official, who requested anonymity in line with French diplomatic protocol, said France remained committed to avoiding “a conflict between the Alliance and Russia.”
It is unclear what exactly France has in mind, but as Foreign Minister Stéphane Séjournet said in parliament, it is likely that troops will be sent for the purpose of “not crossing the line of belligerence.” It seems so.
Some of these purposes could include demining, training, and supporting local weapons production, all of which are intended to protect against further Russian advances, but which could prevent any Ukrainian attack. Do not participate in any public activities.
Of course, Russia will define Western “belligerency” in its own terms. The Kremlin has already warned that Mr Macron has introduced “very significant new elements” that could lead to a direct conflict between Russian forces and NATO.
If Western troops were to be stationed on the ground in Ukraine in any numbers, and Russian rockets or missiles killed any of them, this would theoretically trigger Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, the basis of the alliance. It may provide for armed attacks against member states. ” is considered an attack on all of them. ”
This is exactly the path to escalation that President Biden and Prime Minister Scholz have been trying to avoid since the war began.
As a result, Ukraine survived, but no victory was achieved. That doesn’t seem to be enough for Macron.
“Anything is possible if it helps us achieve our goals,” he said, adding that Europe should act because Ukraine’s fate “depends on us and it’s what we have to do.” he added.
[ad_2]
Source link
