At the end of an international meeting in support of Ukraine that he himself had organized, President Emmanuel Macron made some statements that jumped into the headlines last Monday. He suggested the possibility of sending Western troops to support Ukraine, which is struggling on the ground. He spoke of strategic ambiguity. He did not say he planned to mobilize troops, but did not want to rule out that option. Sending combat troops to Ukraine is tantamount to going directly to war with Russia. We would do well to think twice before embarking on such an adventure against a country known for its aggression and possessing a nuclear weapon.
The president’s statements surprised the French military present at the conference. However, it was mainly France’s European and Western partners who reacted most energetically. Germany, Poland and the United Kingdom, the staunchest supporters of Ukraine, responded that there was no question of sending troops to Ukraine. In the United States, President Joe Biden has stated time and time again that he is not considering sending U.S. troops.
It is necessary to distinguish between sending material to help resist Russian aggression and direct participation in a conflict that would then acquire a very different nature. This type of statement carries a real risk of escalation. President Macron, frowned upon by all his counterparts, claimed 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 a similar statement?
We know he likes to be disruptive, to provoke and surprise. Did he give in to what might have seemed like a brilliant intuition, but which turns out to be rather counterproductive? We remember his proposal, after the attacks of 7 October 2023 perpetrated by Hamas in Israel, to create an international coalition against Hamas following the model of the international coalition against Daesh. That brilliant idea seemed completely unfeasible and was widely rejected.
Second hypothesis, do you see an opportunity? The United States is blocked by disagreements in Congress over aid to Ukraine, and Joe Biden does not have his hands free. Germany, the largest European contributor of aid, is hesitant: it does not deliver the Taurus missiles that the Ukrainians are clamoring for. The British, outside the European Union, are caught up in their internal political problems. Macron may have wanted to make a splash by taking the initiative on aid to Ukraine, despite the fact that France has long been seen as the most reluctant ally for making too many concessions to Moscow.
However, the proposal would be in line with the Western climate that reigns in the French media debate and in part of the strategic community. Interviewed on the plane that brought him back from China, Macron declared that the ideological battle for European strategic autonomy was already won. That doesn’t seem to be the case. It may be won in public opinion, but not in the strategic community or in the media, which are much more clearly pro-Western. Did Macron want to satisfy commentators by indicating that he was the toughest on Russia? The fact 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 escalation.
A support in men in Ukraine is equivalent to going to war against Russia. The price paid for the liberation of Ukraine is not worth a world war. Will we die for the 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 claiming that he had changed and that he was very resolved 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 the foreign policy of Buenos Aires, since Argentina is one of the few Latin American countries that support 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 at a time when it is gaining geopolitical importance.
Also, what are the goals of the war? President Zelenskiy continues to state that he wants to liberate all lost territories by 2014 and 2022. This seems like a difficult task from a military point of view, unless the West rushes to war. Instead, it is essential to reflect on the very serious consequences of such an announcement. Massively supporting Ukraine with weapons and going to war on its side are two entirely different matters.
