Sending troops? What the EU has planned for Ukraine

Emmanuel Macron’s statement about the possibility of sending troops to Ukraine significantly shook the Western media.

Emmanuel Macron’s words about the possible sending of troops to Ukraine aroused the foreign media. Macron himself allegedly refuted this statement in an interview with a Czech publication, but Western media believe they have a different subtext. This statement is supported by the negotiations that the French President is actively conducting with his European colleagues. In particular, the President of the Czech Republic was involved in providing ammunition to Ukraine. What the Western media has written about this topic is more than just a story.

The Associated Press news agency believes that after his speech, Macron found himself isolated on the European stage. French officials tried to soften the backlash but continued to stress the importance of sending troops to Ukraine. The Kremlin, in turn, warned that a conflict between Russia and the Alliance was inevitable and traditionally began to threaten nuclear war.

The agency said that, according to Macron, no consensus has been reached regarding the official deployment of troops, “but from the point of view of dynamics, nothing can be decided.” In addition, one of the French diplomats told the media that the purpose of Macron’s statement was “to send a signal to Putin that this is now a possible option, and that he is not simply relying on the fact that none of the partner country of Ukraine. will be deployed there.” He also believes that the French President really does not eliminate any options.

It is worth noting that Macron himself kept the lines of communication open with Russia after the start of the invasion; in particular, he made scandalous statements about “saving Putin’s face,” as well as “shame on Russia.”

The publication Foreign Policy tried to explain Macron’s hint and the basis for sending troops to Ukraine. The authors believe that although Macron’s statements are bolder than those of other Western leaders and are likely intended to signal to the Kremlin that Europe is serious about deterrence, their main goal is still to move the discussion on Ukraine from a dead point.

In his comments, Macron complained about the tendency of some countries to first reject most proposals to support Ukraine and then agree to them. It was one of several thinly veiled rebukes by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who once again ruled out the possibility of Kyiv supplying Taurus long-range missiles.

Journalists of the publication also believe that if Macron is really serious about the possibility of introducing European troops to Ukraine, his approach leaves much to be desired. He must, for example, coordinate his actions with at least a few key allies.

Also, if the French president is serious, he will need to be more clear about the scenarios in which European troops can be sent to Ukraine, and perhaps outline a specific role for France. Here, analysts gave examples of the upcoming reconstruction of the economy of the Ukrainian military-industrial complex, as well as the EU military training mission, which may be transferred to the territory of Ukraine.

The authors note that radical statements from Paris began to be heard after several complaints from NATO member countries about France’s inaction. They point out that there is indeed a huge gap between France’s meager support for Ukraine and its aspirations to play a leading role on the continent. And according to data from the monitoring of support to Ukraine by the Institute of World Economics in Kiel, France ranks 22nd out of 27 EU members in terms of the volume of aid commitments to Ukraine as a percentage of GDP.

Politico was generally skeptical about Macron’s words. The French President, in their opinion, has a knack for making monumental statements, which he later retracts without thinking of any consequences. Or they are simply put aside and forgotten when he has other big ideas. But raising the question of the possibility of bringing in NATO troops was a glaring mistake not only by his colleagues, but also by the European public, which is increasingly worried about where this war is going and whether Ukraine can win here, the media added.

According to this opinion, journalists cited a European public survey, which seemed pessimistic about Ukraine’s war capabilities. Therefore, European leaders need to convince their citizens to maintain their support.

It is also argued that, short of manpower and ammunition, Ukraine will not be able to mount a serious counter-offensive this year. All he can do is hang on to the hope of preparing for a major counter-offensive next year. But, as the publication’s analysis notes, “without Western air defense and long-range missiles, as well as artillery shells, it will be difficult for Kyiv to organize a reliable, sustainable defense.”

Therefore, Macron had better convince Europe to increase military supplies so that Putin does not win and Ukraine gets what it needs. Moreover, the West has a poor track record when it comes to recent land interventions. Therefore, given the stability and determination of Ukraine, Macron should focus on providing the necessary weapons, and not on dividing Kyiv’s allies and giving the Kremlin a propaganda gift in the form of “inconsistency” of support for Ukraine, the article ends.

The British newspaper The Guardian, in turn, believes that confusion, uncertainty and controversy characterize the current policy of the West in the war in Ukraine. The successful summit meeting in Paris was supposed to give a new direction and force to the efforts of the allies, but caused controversy with Macron’s statement about NATO troops. The authors also highlighted Macron’s history of inconsistent statements, especially his claim that NATO is “brain dead”.

However, his warning that Europe must take control of its destiny because the Americans can no longer be trusted is more relevant than ever in light of Donald Trump’s claims that if he were to become president again he would “encourage” Russia to attack NATO countries that don’t belong to him.

Against this background, the article highlighted the sharp reaction of the Kremlin regarding the inevitable war between NATO and Russia, as well as the threat of a nuclear attack from Putin. However, it also noted that nuclear saber rattling is a common tactic of Moscow after two years of war. It aims to intimidate the Europeans, and to a certain extent it works.

At the same time, by intensifying the debate, Macron issued a timely warning about the future security of Europe as a whole, the authors added. The immediate need is less long-term meetings and more concrete actions that will help Kyiv win – or at least avoid defeat. The more important question concerns the deepening threat to Europe at a time when Putin is “raising his tail and has less time to create a Europe protected from Russia.”

Victor Kovalchuk, expert on international issues at Sotsiopolis Research Company

Olesya Krasnolutskaya, editor of the Athletistic Stories section

New Correspondent.net on Telegram and WhatsApp. Subscribe to our channels Athletistic and WhatsApp