Written by Uriel Araujo, researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts
Much has been said about French President Emmanuel Jean-Michel Frédéric Macron’s latest hawkish statements on the Ukrainian conflict. Some media outlets this week went so far as to (falsely) report that French troops were already in Romania “on the way” to Odessa (Ukraine). As if in response to all the buzz, Macron clarified yesterday, during an interview on French national television TF1 and France 2, with regards to sending troops, that “we’re not in that situation today”, but still adding, quite vaguely, that “all these options are possible”, while declining to describe in what circumstances Paris would be ready to take such measures.
It is not the first time the French president makes (rather ambiguous) statements about the deployment of troops – and then half-denies them.
According to Le Monde, on February 21, at the Elysée Palace, while seated, “with a glass of whisky in hand”, Macron said to a handful of guests, “in any case, in the coming year, I’m going to have to send guys to Odessa.” It is unclear, however, whether the glass of whisky in hand had any role in his alleged wording. The Le Monde news report does not elaborate on that.
On February 26, in any case, this time without any whisky in sight, after hosting a meeting with over 20 Western leaders (including German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Poland’s President Andrzej Duda, US top diplomat for Europe James O’ Brien, and British Foreign Secretary David Cameron), Macron said that “the defeat of Russia is indispensable to security and stability in Europe” and thus “we will do everything needed so Russia cannot win the war”. The French president also stated, quite vaguely, once again, that “we should not exclude that there might be a need for security that then justifies some elements of deployment”. He added, though: “There’s no consensus today to send in an official, endorsed manner troops on the ground. But in terms of dynamics, nothing can be ruled out.” Macron provided no further details, adding that Paris would rather maintain “strategic ambiguity”.
In other words, Macron’s February statement amounted to saying that such a scenario (Western troops on Ukrainian ground) cannot be ruled out, without specifying under which conditions. Such a hypothetical and rhetorical remark stirred quite a buzz, anyway, and was promptly rebutted by other NATO leaders. The American president stressed that providing military aid to Kyiv is the true “path to victory”, and a White House statement added that “President Biden has been clear that the US will not send troops to fight in Ukraine” – in case anyone was wondering. It has always been all about an attrition proxy war for Washington, after all.
In the same tune, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said that the Western agreed position remains the same, namely that no NATO member state shall send troops to the Eastern European country. The British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s spokesman in turn said the UK has no plans other than to employ a small number of personnel training Ukrainian forces as it currently does already. Many other Western leaders echoed the same stance. An unnamed diplomat quoted by Le Monde summarized Macron’s February remarks thusly: “[it is] a catastrophic diplomatic maneuver. When you hold meetings in your country, you have to strive for consensus.” Amid the uproar, a planned Macron’s visit to Ukraine was, once again, postponed.
Such “hawkish” rhetoric sets a striking contrast with the French president’s previous stance. As recently as June 2002, he was claiming that, even in the event of a Ukrainian military victory, “we must not humiliate Russia so that when the fighting stops, we can build a way out through diplomatic channels”, and adding that “I am convinced that France’s role is that of a mediating power.” At that point he was criticized by his colleagues for being too “soft” on Russia. There has been quite a change.
Macron’s strategic reasoning in making such remarks calls for an explanation. Pierre Schill, the French chief of the Army staff, was recently quoted as saying that “what the president of the Republic is saying is first and foremost a political and strategic message. The primary objective is to send [Moscow] a signal of resolve and long-term commitment.” Such signaling however has turned out to be a diplomatic failure within the West and has not resonated well domestically: according to polls, the French people by and large reject the notion of sending troops to Ukraine.
According to an Odoxa poll, 68 per cent of French respondents said their president’s comments on the matter were “wrong”. One should keep in mind that as recently as 2022, (defeated) French Presidential candidate Marine Le Pen, who made it all the way to the second round, was promising to pull France out of NATO – in doing so, one should also keep in mind, she would be simply following the steps of general Charles de Gaulle. As I wrote before, it was president Nicolas Sarkozy, after 43 years, who finally ended Paris “estrangement” from the Atlantic alliance in 2009 – which is not that long ago.
To Moscow such a rhetorical show of force by the French head of state, with all its “ambiguity” and flip-flopping, may only seem as a kind of a bluff.
There is a reason why Macron’s “hawkish” remarks, strategically ambiguous or not (and with or without a glass of liquor in hand), should always be taken with a grain of salt: it is called the Article 5 of NATO Treaty, which states that “the Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them… will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking… such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.” This is serious business, and this is the very core of the transatlantic pact, its raison d’être, really. Articles 3, 4, 6, and 9 all have to do with the provisions on Article 5, which NATO’s official website itself describes as the “cornerstone” of the Alliance. It is no wonder NATO’s enlargement remains one of the main root causes of the crisis in Ukraine today.
All the buzz aside, Macron and his staff certainly do take Article 5 seriously, as well, and it is quite unlikely the current French presidency would be willing to enter into direct conflict with Moscow by deploying its troops to the combat zone. In doing so, he would be dragging the whole of NATO with him to a potentially global conflict between Great Powers, thus raising the risk of thermonuclear war. As the center of gravity of global tensions is shifting, once again to the Middle East, there is no reason whatsoever to entertain such notion at all.
very interesting article. thank you uriel arauhjo
training of troops already underway.
macron is puppet for blackrock/london => french troops in ukraine = uk blackmail to involve the usa into the conflict thru article 5
was it his former employer house rothshild who bought the eastern ukrainian lands and now france need to go collect it?
xactly… and “might send” is a misnomer, the french are already dying on the front, the middle and the rear.
but article 5 is about being attacked, not about being the attacking force
well since the superrich see the entire planet as their real estate the fact that russia exists is an attack to them.
hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha
the midget dictator is very fond of his might’s, his could’s, his probably’s. in the end he will do what his handlers have told him to do, and bark like a poodle whilst sending more taxpayers money. money that was meant for pensions, medical care, education, agriculture, etc. it seems a despot war is more important. i hope the french people consider that when it comes to voting for this little prick. pick le penn. she will do more for france.
i heard they are bringing a white flag
they bring white flag, table cothes, fancy coffee, and fast running shoes.
the russians are still burying napoleon’s troops. i wouldn’t trust anything macron says he’s a gerontophile.
‘he’s a gerontophile’
otherwise known to us simple folks as a grannyshagger.
in reality, macron is a tranny shagger.
full points for comedy, delivery, and hazing a bigger 5 dollar word than i knowz.
latest update on big announcement – macron big chicken who lay big fat egg.
have problems in bed with granny and now, eu countries throw eggs he lay back at him.
that loathsome french soab wants to be relevant. no one gives a s*** about him. midget macron
he has a gallic nose and a pigmy brain.
this midget lives in a bottle since africans closed his shop and gave him the boot
lol south cn..t wrote a whole article on that hahaha bored cunts
you’ve got to act tough when your ‘wife’ is actually an old man and everyone knows your name. macaroni and queez.
macron being a closet gay with a manwife makes sense when you consider the photo’s taken a few years ago of macron meeting with young scantly clad african men. he was all over these young men and couldn’t keep his hands off them.
no doubt someone or something is instructing macron to be more hawkish and aggressive, my guess is the rothschilds
the russians must have warned macron to get his men out of that ukraine hotel. butt he is only interested in things under his belt, and did not pass true that warning. and now we see who he really is. a little spoiled immature nasty kid. our population is starting to segregate the idiots.
mini manu with his tranny granny handler are public enemy no 1 in france and the pos rothschild puppet dictator thinks he will be safer by sending his remaining loyal thugs to go die for the khazarian wet dream, the yellow vests can’t wait for those thugs to take a bullet against a real enemy instead of beating up unarmed workers and protesters.
hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha