In the European public space, saturated with statements without consequences, President Emmanuel Macron’s speech about the possibility of sending troops to Ukraine has every chance of becoming an important milestone. This is not only because it breaks a taboo, not only because it directly corresponds to the reality on the front of the advance of Russian troops, but above all because it signals the failure of the strategy until now, which was primarily aimed at avoiding escalation. Thus, it signals, or at least attempts to cause, a change in European strategy towards Russia

To the question about the possibility of sending troops to Ukraine, which was asked before the start of the conference in Paris on February 26, by the Prime Minister of Slovakia, Robert Fico, Macron answered that “there is no consensus on sending troops to the ground, but in the dynamics of the situation, nothing can be ruled out” and that “we will do everything necessary to prevent Russia from winning this war”[1].

The message was primarily not to Europeans, Americans or French, the message was directly to Moscow: we do not rule out that we will have to sacrifice soldiers from EU countries to stop the advance of the Russian army.

Since France is the only nuclear power in the EU, this message could probably only come from the French president to be taken seriously. And the fact that it was taken seriously is evidenced by both the threatening reaction of Moscow and the chorus of internal and external criticism. The vast majority of this criticism was addressed more or less demagogically to the populace, either to appease it or to defy those who would actually send troops on the ground. But Macron, while saying he did not rule out sending troops, stopped short of announcing that 25,000 troops [2] which the French army seems to be mobilizing, will be sent to-morrow or the day after. But depending on the development of events, Russia should not be sure that the Europeans will idly wait until the Ukrainian army is destroyed to wait their turn.

The signal, then, is that the ominous delay in US aid to Ukraine, which has also highlighted the broken promises of the Europeans, should not allow Russia to anticipate that its allies will abandon Ukraine. Russia should not (anymore) count on the difficulties of European democracies regarding military mobilization. In essence, Macron said the entire strategy of waiting for Russia to escalate the conflict to respond had failed:

“Today there are a lot of people who say ‘Never’, ‘Never.’ [Referindu-se la trimiterea de trupe în Ucraina] there are those who have said in the past: “Never tanks, never planes, never long-range missions”” [3]

That is, the choir of peacekeepers two years after the invasion, it turns out, sang and sings falsely. A change in strategy requires that, in addition to avoiding uncontrolled escalation, the imperative to avoid a Russian victory be placed at the same level of strategic importance.

In addition to the statements at the end of the conference at the Elysée Palace, Macron’s entourage told the newspaper Le Monde (from February 29) that this topic was raised both at his meeting with the President of Ukraine, when Zelensky was in Paris on February 16, and during phone conversations during the preparation for the conference with President Biden and Chancellor Scholz. In addition, the source is taken from Le Figaro said Macron told attendees at the conference on Monday that:

“We cannot allow Russia to win. A war is not won with billions. All solutions must be considered. At a time when there is now a war, we must prepare for all options.”[4]

Wanting to shock, Macron even shook a coconut palm, those who jumped as if scalded effectively show that the rhetoric of solidarity with Ukraine is not enough, that politicians must also assume bad and very bad news and that without courage the political elite, we cannot expect courage even from military elite, not to mention ordinary citizens who do not want to hear about war.

While, as Macron says, “Russia threatens our collective security,” the price of peace is apparently an assumption of a balance of power with whoever threatens you. A diplomatic solution can come only after the initiator of the aggression makes his calculations and admits that he will no longer win with weapons. For now, signs of Western weakness and the two “strategic uncertainties” that the French president spoke about should be offset, referring to the speed of the Ukraine aid vote in the House of Representatives and the results of the US election. with something The point, obviously, is the need to have the deterrent potential of Russia to attack EU member states. But also, probably, first of all, in order to prevent the actions against Moldova, which were directly discussed at the conference in Paris, less than two days later, public signals regarding Transnistria appeared.

It is significant that President Macron, who wanted to negotiate with Putin until the last moment and even after that, now understands that the Russian president is not a negotiating partner today and knows only the language of force. What he said earlier that “Russia should not be humiliated”[5] this does not deprive him of legitimacy, but, on the contrary, puts in difficulties those who, after these two years, make a similar speech.

“We are not at war with the Russian people,” said the French president in the same speech on the evening of February 26, but for the first time he mentioned not only that Russia should not win the war, but also the necessity for it to be defeated: “We are convinced that defeat Russia is necessary for the security and stability of Europe.”

Loud headlines in the European press gave the impression of France’s isolation on this issue, but if you look more closely, you will see that in most important capitals there is a risk of Russian aggression against a NATO state and the need to prevent such a risk by significantly increasing arms spending[6]. Now, it seems, the dispute is at the level of communication, and not at the level of strategic decisions, which are made at closed conferences, as was the case in Paris.

Le Monde also takes the statement of Johann Michel from the International Institute for Strategic Studies (London): “One must accept the minimal possibility of intervention and avoid the multiplication of red lines. Otherwise, the Russians think they have a free hand.”

It is clear that the third world war, so often mentioned, contrary to the speeches of Macron’s detractors, could begin if the West continues to show signs of weakness, and not if it mobilizes for possible aggression and blocks the expansionist and even genocidal actions of Russia.

Therefore, we should not dwell on the emotional images of young people who will be sent to the front, images that have already been caused by objective friends of Russia or its involuntary agents. We have to consider the series of solutions that are now open between, on the one hand, the limited and delayed aid that characterized the Western strategy in these first two years of the war, and, on the other hand, an extreme and highly unlikely solution, but for which we must be prepared, – send troops.

Hence Macron’s clear assumption of “strategic ambiguity” that will allow Ukraine’s allies to no longer allow Russia to predict their actions. Rejection of the permanent introduction of arbitrary red lines will also allow us to assume the presence of some of the military personnel of these allies in Ukraine, based on the bilateral security agreements that are signed during this period.

These servicemen are already present not as combat units, but as military advisers, and their numbers will have to increase as assistance in military technology becomes more important, and especially as Ukrainian military instructors go to fight at the front. What is important now is Macron’s assumption, today only implicit, about this situation, tomorrow it will probably be an explicit assumption of several allies of Ukraine. This assumption is an important signal for the authorities in the Kremlin and in support of Ukraine, which is currently experiencing great difficulties.

Kyiv’s reaction was clearly positive. Not because they’re hoping for combat troops, but because shock therapy at the communication level has a chance to wake others up as well. For Mykhailo Podoliak, adviser to the President of Ukraine, “Macron is now proving a deep knowledge of the risks for Europe of the war in Ukraine”[7].

A gradual realization of these risks, combined with Putin’s limitlessness, as tragically evidenced by the assassination of Alexei Navalny, seems to have led to this turning point. When the initial shock wears off, we will see if a common position can be worked out, perhaps not before the European elections. _Read the rest of the article on Contributors.ro