Jean-Baptiste Noet is a doctor of economic history and editor-in-chief of the journal Conflits. He recently published. The fall of the world. the geopolitics of conflict and competition in 2023 (2022, Artillery Edition, 288 p., €22).
FIGAROVOX. – After weeks of hesitation, Germany and the USA announced on January 25 the supply of heavy tanks to Ukraine. What could have motivated this decision, and what are the immediate consequences for the conflict?
Jean-Baptiste NOÉ. – The motive of this decision is above all international pressures. Germany was very reluctant to send tanks, but there was pressure from Poland, the Baltic states and even the United Kingdom. As for the consequences of the conflict, it is necessary to distinguish between the psychological and military aspects. On a psychological level, this shipment shows that European countries are really committed to the war in Ukraine, because it is about offensive weapons and heavy equipment. It is a sign that they are really at war with Russia, even if they don’t say it openly. It is not a de jure joint war, because it does not meet the legal standards, but a de facto solidarity.
As for the military aspect, we should be quite careful about the assumptions that can be made about the consequences of these supplies. The tanks, for some, won’t arrive until March, and a lot can happen between now and then. In addition, it will be necessary to train soldiers, coordinate tanks and integrate them into the overall strategy. Therefore, today it is more of a psychological and verbal influence than a direct influence on military operations.
Western European countries have announced that they want to avoid the escalation of violence. Have they abandoned this policy? Should we expect a bigger European commitment and other deliveries?
At the moment there is no spiral of violence. A year ago, at the beginning of the war, there were fears that the conflict would flare up and spread throughout Europe. However, it remained very localized in some regions of Ukraine. If the Europeans are supplying arms today, it is because they believe that Ukraine is in a strong position and that they believe they can push back the Russians. This decision clearly follows from the calculation of risks. Victory attracts victory, and as in every war, we prefer to support the potential winner.
We cannot blame the French for not voting, for turning their backs on legislative elections, and for not consulting parliament on a subject as important as war.
Jean-Baptiste Noe
But the big question is what to do next. The Germans said that they will not supply planes, we will see what will happen in three or four months. These words may be completely forgotten. Ukraine is asking for these planes. This uncertainty is quite worrying, the Europeans are moving forward without a real goal. No one has defined war goals. What do we want by supplying weapons to Ukraine? Is the goal to expel the Russians from the territory of Ukraine, including Crimea? To push the Russians back, to force peace? These goals have never been defined, and European states probably have different ulterior motives. You cannot win a war without clearly defined objectives.
The European Union has announced to hold a summit in Kyiv on February 3. Is it a simple communication operation or is this meeting really important?
Both of them. there is a symbolic and a practical side. The fact that this is happening in Kyiv sends a pretty strong message that the city is safe enough to host the leaders. Communication is key especially in this war. But it remains to be seen whether the announced summit will actually take place. Then, it is hard to know if it will really change the war. On the ground, we see that the Russians are making very little progress, and are probably preparing for a major counterattack. So, in strictly military terms, the situation remains pretty much fixed. But diplomacy is in progress, as this summit shows, which is very important for getting out of the conflict.
France seems more reluctant to send heavy artillery and particularly Leclerc tanks. How to explain this?
Such delivery causes two problems. First of all, France is facing a democratic problem. We have been dealing with Ukraine for a year, and there have never been any debates in the parliament. We have to admit that the president has all the powers to involve the French army, but still he has to organize a parliamentary debate. However, since we did not officially declare war, this did not happen. There is a real moral problem, it is an extremely important and serious topic that requires parliamentary discussions. We cannot blame the French for not voting, for turning their backs on legislative elections, and for not consulting parliament on a subject as important as war. Senators should take up the topic and ask us to organize a debate, it is a fundamental issue.
The risk is to reveal our weakness at the material level if we become more involved in Ukraine.
Jean-Baptiste Noe
The second problem concerns the Leclerc tanks themselves. These tanks are getting old, although they are very nice machines. Their maintenance is particularly expensive, tens of thousands of euros per month, and we don’t necessarily have the necessary parts. So one of the reluctance to ship them is that we are no longer able to provide service and after sales service. We have heavy weapons of high efficiency, but we are powerless to use them. The risk is to expose our weakness at this level if we become more involved in Ukraine. And we generally have few operational tanks because some have been used to give parts to others. That’s a real problem.
Don’t we risk weakening our military with a greater commitment in Ukraine? Will we be able to defend ourselves tomorrow in the event of a high-intensity conflict?
It depends on where we are attacked. A direct invasion of the metropolitan area is unlikely. It is possible in overseas territories. But it is certain that the French army today no longer has the means to support a long-term war. We see the difficulty we have in monitoring the Indo-Pacific region. There is a recent Senate report that clearly shows the lack of military equipment in this area. If a country were to occupy a French Indo-Pacific island tomorrow, it would be difficult for us to intervene. It is therefore obvious that operating in Ukraine is tantamount to exposure elsewhere and, in particular, exposure in certain strategic areas.
Source: Le Figaro
I am David Wyatt, a professional writer and journalist for Buna Times. I specialize in the world section of news coverage, where I bring to light stories and issues that affect us globally. As a graduate of Journalism, I have always had the passion to spread knowledge through writing.