Does ‘Little Napoleon’ Macron want to lead Europe to war with Russia?

France seems to want to go to war with Russia. Perhaps French President Emmanuel Macron imagines himself as Napoleon reincarnated, determined to transform this continent into the world. Wertmacht. President Macron recently argued that Europeans “should not rule out the possibility that there is a need for security, so that some elements of security are justified.” [military] Expand. ” In fact, he not only insisted that “nothing should be ruled out,” but added, “We will do everything we can to prevent Russia from winning this war.”

The most important NATO allies, led by Washington, rejected his proposal. Nevertheless, Macron’s bombast stands in sharp contrast to his government’s stingy contribution of about $1 billion to Ukraine. It has doubled with the support of For example, the Prime Minister of Estonia 7,200 The men and women took up arms and claimed that “everything is on the table to help Ukraine defeat Putin.” As before, the NATO countries with the lowest military strength appeared ready to propose grand plans that would utilize the militaries of other member states.

The United States and several NATO allies are already deeply involved in a proxy war against Moscow. Providing large quantities of weapons to kill thousands of Russians is provocative enough. Both Washington and Moscow have played this game in the past, with Afghanistan and Vietnam coming to mind, respectively. In both cases, however, the neo-belligerents were less public about their direct involvement and less ostentatiously celebrating the deadly outcome.

First, many foreigners are being sent unofficially to fight alongside Ukraine against Russia. Former Pentagon official Stephen Brien explained, “The Russians are now saying that many of the so-called ‘mercenaries’ in Ukraine are actually highly trained NATO soldiers. They wear Ukrainian uniforms with patches identifying their country, which are “required” to operate the high-tech weapons NATO sent to Ukraine. When the Russians recently occupied Avdiivka, they found the bodies of these mercenaries, some of whom were Americans and Poles. ”

A few weeks ago, Russia claimed to have killed French fighters in an airstrike. The Paris government called the report “disinformation,” but that denial is widely discredited, especially now. Brien added: “Most deaths of NATO personnel are covered up. When they are reported at all, it is usually said that the ‘volunteer’ was providing medical assistance.”

Other allied forces are more openly active. German Chancellor Scholz revealed that both France and Britain are moving troops to Kiev to help use high-tech weapons. “What Britain and France do in terms of target management and support for target management cannot be done in Germany,” Scholz said.

Britain acknowledged the truth and criticized Scholz only for leaking information. London helped Ukraine destroy Russian warships. Additionally, international affairs expert Michael Brenner explained that Britain’s “specialized personnel are operating Storm Shadow missiles (equivalent to France’s SCALP), which were used against Crimea and other targets.” MI-6 has played a leading role in designing multiple attacks on Kerch Bridge and other critical infrastructure. ” There were rumors that the British were supporting the air defense forces that shot down the Russian plane carrying Ukrainian prisoners.

Such activities are widespread. Le Monde “Since the outbreak of the invasion of Ukraine, a number of state actors associated with Western intelligence services, often with military status, have been present in the country: secret diplomats, Ukrainian advisers, members of special forces.” has played an essential role since the beginning of the war.

President Macron’s proposal to escalate the conflict has sparked a war of words between the allies. He suggested that his critics were stubborn weaklings, saying: “We are definitely approaching a time in Europe where we need to stop being cowards.” The Ukrainian government is reportedly considering sending special forces to support Ukraine’s air defense operations.

The United States is also sending personnel to the ground in training and other roles. Two German generals, whose conversations were intercepted by Russia, said: “We know there are a lot of people running around there in civilian clothes with American accents.” Apparently, there are a lot of them. Brenner explained:

Approximately 4 to 5,000 Americans have been performing critical operational missions since the beginning. The majority’s presence had existed for several years prior to the start of hostilities two years ago. The contingent was augmented last summer by a 1,700-strong replacement group of logistics experts touted as tasked with finding and rooting out corruption in the underground trade in stolen goods. People at the Pentagon, from the headquarters’ planning units to field advisors, engineers and special forces, are indoctrinated with Ukrainian military thinking. It is widely known that the Americans have operated sophisticated HIMARS long-range artillery and Patriot air defense units. This means that U.S. military personnel are targeting (and possibly pulling the trigger on) weapons that will kill Russians.

The CIA also plays an active role in the defense of Ukraine.

In the weeks leading up to Russia’s invasion in February 2022, CIA officers remained in a remote area of ​​western Ukraine as the Biden administration evacuated U.S. military personnel. During the invasion, officials relayed vital information such as where Russia planned to attack and what weapons systems it would use. . “Without them, we would not have been able to resist Russia or defeat them,” said Ivan Bakanov, then head of Ukraine’s domestic intelligence agency SBU.

U.S. officials anonymously but publicly took credit for the killing of a Russian general and the sinking of a Russian ship. Washington is one of the main suspects in the Russo-German Nord Stream 2 pipeline attack.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg also encouraged escalation, saying, “It is up to each ally to decide whether to hand over F-16 jets to Ukraine, but Ukraine has no self-defense policy, such as attacking legitimate Russian military targets abroad.” have the right to do so.” Ukraine. ” The issue is not only the range of the plane, but also who will fly the plane. The Russian government assumes that NATO will also provide pilots, but that may seem unlikely to Americans. But then the Russians flew planes against the United States on behalf of North Korea and against Israel on behalf of Egypt.

Some Ukrainian partisans will push the boundaries of what is possible causes of infidelity on the outside. Foreign forces could play a variety of non-combat roles in Ukraine, all of which risk drawing NATO into the conflict. Paris said that one of the purposes of introducing troops was to “prevent the presence of French soldiers, [those] Other countries may defend certain areas of Ukrainian territory. ” This means that French troops operating in the war zone provide a human shield that allows Ukraine to freely attack Russia while avoiding retaliation. Rather, like President Woodrow Wilson’s ridiculous claim that a single American aboard a British reserve cruiser loaded with munitions through a war zone provided immunity, it was unlikely that Kiev, Odessa, or Kharkov would be immune. One French soldier in the city would make the entire city immune to attack. Of course, it would be foolish if French soldiers had chosen to enter a war zone. But Paris has already complained to Moscow about the killing of its own citizens in Ukraine.

Hawkish former congressman Adam Kinzinger has reinforced this principle in the U.S. by launching a missile strike about 500 feet away from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and visiting Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis in Odessa. He insisted that it would be changed into a policy. Article 5 contains the news that the strike in Odessa nearly hit the Greek Prime Minister. ” Perhaps he believes that if a Russian attack dies a U.S. politician grandstanding with Mr. Zelensky in Kiev or a U.S. soldier training Ukrainians elsewhere, the U.S. will go to war. You would expect that.

Why is there such widespread enthusiasm for igniting what could become a nuclear World War III?

In a strange way, we are paying the price for the fact that Putin failed to escalate. Washington and his allies began cautiously, hesitant to act as armorers for Ukraine. But as President Putin ignored military provocations, the NATO government fired a flurry of deadly weapons, killing thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of Russian soldiers. So far, Putin has refused to escalate, despite sharp criticism from the nationalist right. France’s foreign minister now confidently claims that the allies can send troops “without crossing the threshold of engagement.”

Would Washington exercise the same restraint as Russia in a similar situation? Four years ago, candidate Joe Biden said what many Americans were thinking: “Why is this president working with Putin when he is actually paying bounties to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan?” I don’t understand why they are so reluctant to confront each other.” Although the story was not true, Washington was filled with demands for retaliation. Russia has emptied its arsenal and sent it all to the Taliban, provided missiles to attack U.S. territory, sent personnel to Afghanistan to operate Russian weapons, and conducted intelligence gathering for the rebels. , imagine if they openly discussed bringing in Russian troops to support the Taliban.Washington would do it. somethingand probably a lot of reactions.

In this respect, the West is benefiting from President Putin’s clear belief that Russia is winning, and perhaps his refusal to risk escalating the war. (The invasion was costly, but he still seems to believe he can achieve his goals.) Still, allies say they are determined to prevent Moscow from winning. Some argue that Ukraine should be provided with enough support to negotiate a favorable peace deal. Some, like Mr. Macron, talk about creating a victory for Ukraine. All our friends in Kiev want to expose the folly of Putin’s ambitions.

The future of Ukraine is clearly of existential interest to Ukrainians, but not to Americans or Europeans, despite the colorful rhetoric on both sides of the Atlantic. Indeed, public support for Ukraine on both sides of the Atlantic is thin and declining. As time passes, this decline is likely to accelerate further.

By contrast, the Russian government and its nationalist supporters also see Ukraine’s status as an existential benefit. President Putin is also likely assessing both his own historical reputation and, more directly, his political survival. If an ally openly engages in hostilities, makes possible a systematic attack on Moscow or other major Russian cities, seriously threatens Crimea, or virtually destroys Russian military units, Moscow’s The calm is unlikely to last. For Putin, defeat is not really an option. And given the Russian military’s low standards for the use of nuclear weapons, the consequences could be dire for everyone.

Allied aid helped the Ukrainian people defend their independence from Moscow’s attacks. But Macron, the Napoleonic wannabe, talks about overthrowing Russia. It is a fool’s errand that is likely to spark a broader and more destructive conflict. Instead, Washington and Brussels should focus on ending the conflict peacefully.