With his surprise declaration that sending Western troops to Ukraine “should not be ruled out,” French President Emmanuel Macron broke a taboo, sparked debate, sowed frustration among allies and forced a reckoning on Europe’s future.
For a beleaguered leader who abhors lazy thinking, longs for a Europe with military might and loves the limelight, this was typical enough. It was Mr. Macron, after all, who in 2019 described NATO as suffering from “brain death” and who last year warned Europe not to become America’s strategic “vassal”.
But making bold statements is one thing, and patiently putting the pieces in place to achieve those goals is another. Mr Macron has often favored provocation over preparation, even if he often has a point, such as arguing since 2017 that Europe needed to boost its defense industry to gain more strategic weight.
This week was no exception. By moving forward without building consensus among the allies, Mr Macron may have done more to demonstrate Western divisions and the limits of how far NATO allies are willing to go to defend Ukraine than to achieve “strategic ambiguity ” that he says he needs to remain President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia guesses.
Mr Macron’s challenge looked partly like a search for relevance at a time when he is isolated at home and has emerged as a fringe 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.
But for Mr Macron, the case for “acting differently” in Ukraine, as he said on Monday after a meeting in Paris of leaders and officials from 27 mostly European countries, is overwhelming.
Since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine two years ago, the West has sought to contain the conflict in Ukraine and avoid a shooting war between Russia and NATO that could escalate into a nuclear confrontation. Hence the hesitation of his allies.
But the containment has obvious limitations that have left Ukraine struggling to hold the line against a larger Russian force. Russia has recently captured territory on the eastern front. Ukraine does not have the weapons and ammunition it needs. Uncertainty surrounds American support for the war in an election year. and no one knows where a bold Mr. Putin will stop. Given all this, more of the same seems silly in France.
“The defeat of Russia is essential for the security and stability of Europe,” Mr Macron said, rejecting the cautious wording that Russia should not win favored by the United States and Germany.
Behind the French president’s words was indignation at the seeming strategic impunity afforded Mr. Putin by the West.
“The positive thing is that Macron is trying to introduce a balance of power, and therefore deterrence, with Russia — tell Putin that we are ready for anything, so you should worry, we will not give up,” said Nicole Baharan. social scientist and specialist in the United States at Sciences Po University.
But it also highlighted a cumulative problem for Mr Macron – the lack of credibility of a leader on a difficult wartime strategic journey.
It began with his attempt to involve Russia in a new European “security architecture” in 2019, despite Russia’s annexation of Crimea five years earlier. It followed his declaration in 2022 that “we must not humiliate Russia” and the lengthy exercise in the futility of repeated phone calls to Mr Putin in the months following the Russian leader’s large-scale invasion.
It has now culminated with the French president spearheading defiance of Mr Putin and a storming concert 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’s pushing, but people don’t feel they can trust him to be consistent,” Ms Baharan said. Even states that agree with Mr. Macron’s analysis may balk at his volatility.
Certainly his openness to sending troops was unexpected. In the short term, at least, the result seems to have been more strategic confusion than “strategic ambiguity.”
His game presented Russia with an image of allied division as countries from the United States to Sweden rejected the troop deployment. It also highlighted Franco-German differences over the war, with Chancellor Olaf Scholz not only ruling out German forces but any “ground troops from European countries or NATO”.
“A disaster,” said influential German magazine Der Spiegel of the differences between the two leaders.
Mr Macron’s mocking complaint of repeated delays and reversals in Western policy towards Ukraine — “never, never tanks, never, never planes, never, never long-range missiles” — appeared particularly provocative to Germany, as France was among of those who said no before he said yes.
When France and Germany are at odds, Europe tends to stand still, which is exactly what Mr. Macron does not want in his nearly seven-year push for greater European “strategic autonomy” from the United States.
Mr Macron’s vision of an independent European defense seems more relevant than ever, with Europeans worried about the possible return to the White House of Donald J. Trump — and with it, as Trump himself says, a possible wink at Russia to do its worst . 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, Mr Macron has struggled to sway Europe towards greater independence.
At home, where his popularity has fallen and he lacks an outright majority in Parliament, Mr Macron faced an outcry over an apparent policy shift decided without any national debate, a recurring issue in a highly centralized, top-down presidency .
From the far left to the far right, lawmakers condemned what Oliver Faure, a socialist, called the “foolishness” of a possible war with Russia. Jordan Bardella, the chairman of the far-right National Rally party, which was close to Moscow, accused Mr Macron of “losing his cool”.
But no one has answered the fundamental question Mr Macron has raised: How to stop Russia’s advance and a Ukrainian defeat that would threaten freedom and open societies across Europe.
“Macron has finally realized that dialogue with Russia is going nowhere, and increasing cyber attacks in France and other states have convinced him that Putin will not stop in Ukraine,” said Nicolas Tenzer, a political scientist who has argued here and long the sending of Western troops to Ukraine. . “NATO’s credibility and Europe itself are at risk.”
In that sense, as Russia moves forward and a $60 billion US aid package to Ukraine is held up in Congress by Republican opposition, Mr Macron may have forced a necessary reassessment, especially given the possibility of Mr Trump’s re-election.
“Should we entrust our future to the American voter?” asked Mr Macron. “My answer is no, whatever that voter decides.”
Doubling down on Mr Macron’s statement, despite the outrage it has caused, a senior official in his inner circle said on Tuesday that “we are comforting Mr Putin with his impression that we are weak when we write checks, make statements, send artillery and produce shells , but above all we don’t want to take any risks.”
At the same time, said the official, who requested anonymity, in accordance with French diplomatic protocol, France remains committed to avoiding “a confrontation between the Alliance and Russia.”
Exactly what France has in mind is unclear, but it seems likely that any troops would be sent for purposes that “do not go beyond the threshold of war,” as Foreign Minister Stéphane Séjourné told the National Assembly.
Among those purposes, demining, training, and assistance in local arms production seem likely, all aimed at defending against further Russian origins, but without engaging in any aggressive Ukrainian action.
Of course, Russia will define Western “war” on its own terms. The Kremlin has already warned that Mr Macron has introduced “a very important new element” that could lead to an immediate conflict between Russian forces and NATO.
If Western troops are ever on the ground in Ukraine in any number, a Russian missile or missile that kills any of them could theoretically trigger Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, the alliance’s cornerstone, which says an armed attack on any member”. it will be considered an attack against everyone.”
This is precisely the path to escalation that President Biden and Chancellor Scholtz intended to avoid from the start of the war.
The result is that Ukraine has survived but not prevailed. For Mr Macron this, it seems, is not enough.
“Everything is possible if it is useful to achieve our goal,” he said, adding that Europe must act because Ukraine’s fate “depends on us and that is what we have to do.”
