At the end of an international meeting in support of Ukraine that he himself had organized, President Emmanuel Macron made statements that made headlines last Monday. He suggested the possibility of sending Western soldiers to support Ukraine, which is struggling on the ground. He talked about strategic ambiguity. He did not say he planned to mobilize troops, but he did not want to rule out that option. Sending combat troops to Ukraine is tantamount to going directly to war against Russia. We would do well to think twice before embarking on such an adventure against a country known for its aggressiveness and which has nuclear weapons.
The president's statements surprised the French military present at the conference. However, it was above all France's European and Western partners that reacted most energetically. Germany, Poland and the United Kingdom, Ukraine's strongest supporters, responded that there was no question of sending troops to Ukraine. In the United States, President Joe Biden has stated time and again that he is not considering sending American soldiers.
It is necessary to distinguish between sending material to help resist Russian aggression and direct participation in a conflict that would then take on a very different nature. Those types of statements carry a real risk of escalation. President Macron, disapproved by all of his counterparts, stated that ideas initially rejected could end up making their way. However, sending tanks or planes, an idea initially rejected, is not the same as sending troops, which would lead to co-belligerence or even direct belligerence with Russia.
What could have led President Emmanuel Macron to make such a statement?
We know that you like to be disruptive, provoke and surprise. Did you give in to what may have seemed like a brilliant intuition, but which turns out to be rather counterproductive? Let us remember his proposal, after the attacks of October 7, 2023 perpetrated by Hamas in Israel, to create an international anti-Hamas coalition following the model of the international anti-Daesh coalition. That brilliant idea seemed completely unfeasible and was widely rejected.
Second hypothesis: do you see an opportunity? The United States is stymied by disagreements in Congress over aid to Ukraine, and Joe Biden does not have a free hand. Germany, Europe's largest aid contributor, is hesitant: it is not delivering the Taurus missiles that the Ukrainians are crying out for. The British, outside the European Union, are trapped in their internal political problems. Perhaps Macron wanted to make a splash by taking the lead on aid to Ukraine, even though France has long been considered the most reluctant ally for having made too many concessions to Moscow.
However, the proposal would adjust to the Westernist climate that reigns in the French media debate and in part of the strategic community. Interviewed on the plane bringing him back from China, Macron declared that the ideological battle for European strategic autonomy had already been won. It doesn't seem to be the case. It may be won in public opinion, but not in the strategic community or in the media, much more clearly Westernist. Did Macron want to satisfy the commentators by indicating that he was the toughest towards Russia? The point is that, between being tough on Russia and running the risk of being dragged into a war, you have to weigh the risks and be cautious about escalations.
Supporting Ukraine in men is equivalent to going to war against Russia. The price paid for the liberation of Ukraine is not worth a world war. Are we going to die for Donbas (which Ukraine neglected not long ago)?
There is a risk that Ukraine will become an important, if not the main, horizon of French diplomacy. There was already a turning point in Bratislava, when Macron tried to satisfy the Eastern Europeans (Poland and the Baltic countries) by stating that he had changed and that he was very resolute in relation to Russia. We are now clearly facing another step.
Stéphane Séjourné, French Minister of Foreign Affairs, visited Argentina a few days ago to celebrate Buenos Aires' foreign policy, given that Argentina is one of the few Latin American countries that supports Ukraine. Applauding this support carries the risk of isolating itself from other Latin American countries, because France could serve as a bridge between the Global South and the Western world. France is a Western country, but its geopolitical DNA cannot be reduced to just that. Ukraine cannot be the alpha and omega of France's foreign policy, whose interest lies, rather, in developing relations with the non-Western world just at a time when it is gaining geopolitical importance.
Also, what are the objectives of the war? President Zelensky continues to claim that he wants to liberate all lost territories in 2014 and 2022. It seems a difficult task from a military point of view, unless the West rushes into war. Instead, it is essential to reflect on the very serious consequences of such an announcement. Massively supporting Ukraine with weapons and entering the war on its side are two completely different issues.
Translation: Juan Gabriel López Guix
