By Jorge Liboreiro
It’s been (yet another) dizzying week for European diplomacy that has left officials, journalists and analysts scratching their heads in search for a plausible explanation.
The reason for the latest twist lies in the tenant of the Élysée Palace: Emmanuel Macron. The French president has for months been besieged by criticism that his country, the EU’s second largest, is not doing enough to support Ukraine against the Russian aggression. According to the Kiel Institute, France has provided Kyiv with military aid worth €0.64 billion, a number that seems risible next to the €17.7 billion supplied by Germany. The numbers get even worse when compared to the weaponry donated by smaller-size countries like Denmark (€8.4 billion), the Netherlands (€4.4 billion), the Czech Republic (€1.26 billion) and Estonia (€0.89 billion).
French officials have forcefully contested the institute’s methodology and argued the country’s assistance exceeds €3 billion and includes long-range missiles, which Germany has so far refused to send, and services like training and maintenance. Still, diplomats in Brussels complain French donations do not live up to the country’s economic weight and military might and that more should, and could, be done. Berlin is pushing for the EU to come up with a “detailed” overview of how much each member state is willing to provide to Ukraine, a strategy with the thinly-veiled purpose of exposing laggards like France, Spain and Italy.
In the face of growing recriminations, Macron tried this week the go-to method in diplomacy to change one’s narrative in one’s favour: to hold a summit. The French president welcomed representatives from the 27 member states, Norway, the UK, the US and Canada in an international conference at the Élysée focused on ensuring long-term, multi-faceted support for Ukraine. Despite the short notice, the majority of his fellow EU leaders showed up in a sign of unity.
Everything was going according to plan until Macron, at the end of the meeting, appeared before reporters and dropped a bombshell that nobody expected him to drop.
“There is no consensus today to officially, openly, and with endorsement, send troops on the ground. But in terms of dynamics, nothing should be ruled out,” he said. “We will do everything necessary to ensure that Russia cannot win this war.”
The explicit suggestion that a NATO country – or NATO as a whole – could send soldiers to Ukraine to battle against the invading Russian troops immediately made headlines and sent shockwaves in and outside Europe.
Until now, such an idea had been invoked only by Ukraine, who, as you might remember, spent the first weeks of the war pleading with Western countries to impose a no-fly zone to deny entry to Russian planes. The idea, which was even seen in placards at anti-war protests, gradually lost prominence, mainly because NATO held firmly onto a polite “no.” The Alliance is bound by its Article 5 of collective defence, meaning that a (hypothetical) attack by Russia against the troops of one single member state would be enough to trigger the provision.
This explains why Macron’s bold proposal prompted a seemingly synchronised cascade of rebuttals: the US, the UK, Italy, Spain, Poland and the Czech Republic were among those who said on the record they would not send their national armies to help Ukraine. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told AP that “there are no plans for NATO combat troops on the ground in Ukraine.” German Chancellor Olaf Scholz went further and posted three messages, including one video message, on his social media account to shut down Macron’s plan. “NATO is not – and will not be – a party to war. It stays that way,” Scholz said. (The three posts were community-noted by X users.)
Volodymyr Zelenskyy was much more welcoming. “The stronger we are in Ukraine, the weaker Putin will be. If any initiatives strengthen Ukraine, they are good for the whole world,” he said.
Meanwhile, in Paris, Macron’s foreign affairs minister tried to clarify, saying NATO needed to support Ukraine in areas such as de-mining and cyber-operations “without crossing the threshold of belligerence.” The minister, though, did not completely row back, as he said future assistance “may require foreign troops presence on Ukrainian territory for certain actions.” From Moscow, Vladimir Putin warned that NATO “threats” would lead to nuclear warfare and catastrophic consequences.
Although the debacle is, in many ways, a regrettable waste of diplomatic energy at a time when Ukraine is dealing with a stalled counteroffensive and waning military support, it also has a useful component, as it helps everybody around the table know where they really stand. The West has repeatedly pledged to do “whatever it takes” to support Ukraine but, as the latest episode shows, the “unwavering support” can go only so far.
SPECIAL REPORT Our reporter Valérie Gauriat travelled to Ukraine as the war turned two years and witnessed the enduring resilience of soldiers on the front. |
|
|
|
Φόρουμ
Γεγονότα
Εικονοθήκη
Latest images
Αναζήτηση
Εγγραφή
Σύνδεση
ΔιαχειριστήςAdmin
“The stronger we are in Ukraine, the weaker Putin will be. If any initiatives strengthen Ukraine, they are good for the whole world,”
