Macron breaks a taboo, suggesting that dispatch of troops from individual NATO countries to Ukraine should not be ruled out
Emmanuel Macron set off a firestorm of criticisms when he suggested at a meeting of Defense Ministers of countries providing military aid to Ukraine that the sending of troops to Ukraine by individual countries to prevent a Russian victory should not be ruled out.1
The item was on the agenda and was discussed at the meeting.2
The reaction to the mere suggestion that such action “should not be ruled out” laid bare the core contradiction in the military strategy of NATO countries and other countries supporting Ukraine.3
From the beginning, the U.S. and NATO countries have pursued two objectives: 1) to prevent the defeat of Ukraine by the invading Russian army; and 2) to not themselves become involved in a direct military confrontation with Russian forces.
For two years they have been able to avoid any huge contradictions in pursuing these two goals. Throughout, they have given precedence to the goal of not becoming involved in a military confrontation with Russia. This priority explains why it took so long to provide modern weapons systems to Ukraine, such as the shorter-range HIMARS artillery units, longer-range cruise missiles, and F-16 fighter aircraft.
Now, however, with Ukraine running out of ammunition and air-defense missiles to defend its cities, the situation has radically changed. It is quite possible that portions of the eastern front could collapse, a process which may have already begun with Russian forces now advancing and capturing village after village.
The one development that might quickly change the situation would be if Germany were to promptly send its Taurus longer-range cruise missiles (500 km range) to Ukraine. This German Chancellor has adamantly refused to do, giving a number of spurious reasons in defense of his decision. The other members of the socalled “traffic light” coalition (Green Party and Free Democrats) favor sending the missiles. The FDP chair of the Bundestag’s defense committee, Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, has been caustic in her criticism of Scholz’s decision on Tuesday and the reasons he advanced to support it.4
A huge problem appears to be timing, and whether additional artillery shells can be brought to the front lines in time to slow the Russian advances.
The option Macron stated should not be ruled out is an option which may become a live option much sooner than Scholz or any of the national leaders who criticized Macron for breaking the taboo at the Paris summit may have imagined.
The tide of the war may be turning. Europe may soon have to make some hard choices.
The larger context is important. NicalasTenzer has published a magnificent book, which lays out in great detail what the stakes are in a war with Putin and Russia, who embody pure evil.
See,
1) “Guerre en Ukraine : « Nous ferons tout ce qu’il faut pour que la Russie ne puisse pas gagner cette guerre », affirme Macron lors du sommet des alliés européens de Kiev; Le chef d’Etat français a annoncé, lundi à Paris, de nouvelles mesures pour fournir plus d’armes, notamment des “missiles et bombes de moyenne et longue portée’. Il ajoute que l’envoi de troupes occidentales à l’avenir ne peut ‘être exclu’, mais s’il n’y a aucun consensus actuellement,” Le Monde, le 27 février 2024 (06:41);
2) “War in Ukraine, live: Macron says that sending Western troops to the ground cannot be “excluded”, even if there is currently no consensus
The French Head of State announced on Monday in Paris new measures to provide more weapons, including “medium and long-range missiles and bombs”. “We will do everything necessary so that Russia cannot win this war,” he said,” Le Monde, February 27, 2024 (06:41);
See,
1) Jean-Baptiste Chastand (Vienne, correspondant régional), Anne-Françoise Hivert (Malmö (Suède), correspondante régionale), Philippe Ricard, Elise Vincent et Thomas Wieder (Berlin, correspondant), “Emmanuel Macron persiste sur l’envoi éventuel de militaires en Ukraine, la plupart des alliés occidentaux prennent leurs distances; L’Elysée a défendu son initiative, mardi, tout en indiquant que la question avait été abordée en amont avec les participants au sommet de Paris. Même certains alliés en pointe contre la Russie ne cachent pas leurs réserves, Le Monde, le 28 février 2024 (modifié à 13h05);
2) Jean-Baptiste Chastand (Vienna, regional correspondent), Anne-Françoise Hivert (Malmö (Sweden), regional correspondent), Philippe Ricard, Elise Vincent and Thomas Wieder (Berlin, correspondent), “Emmanuel Macron persists on the possible sending of soldiers to Ukraine, most Western allies are distancing themselves; The Elysée defended its initiative on Tuesday, while indicating that the issue had been discussed upstream with the participants at the Paris summit. Even some allies in the forefront against Russia do not hide their reservations, Le Monde, February 28, 2024 ( updated at 13:05);
For a balanced and well-informed account of the uproar caused by Macron’s statement, see,
Roger Cohen, “Seeking to Unsettle Russia, Macron Provokes Allies;The French president’s openness to Western troops in Ukraine signaled a quest for military resolve. But some allies felt blindsided,” New York Times, February 28,2024
See Nicolas Tenzer, Notre Guerre;; Le crime et l'oubli : pour une pensée stratégique (French Edition)1924)
The Ukrainian officials expressed this idea more than a year ago.