Macron has gotten his way.
The debate is open.
There is an overwhelming majority that does not plan to send troops.
It's not in their plans, they say.
Since the rejection is categorical, we must take care of the nuances.
There are.
There is the possibility, recognized by several European partners, of sending advisors, instructors, or troops for auxiliary work.
This is how it begins, as has happened on so many previous occasions, in a massive and scandalous way in Vietnam.
The substance is a Macronian translation of Mario Draghi's banking and monetary
whatever it takes
in August 2012 to European security and defense.
The EU must do everything in its power to make Putin fail.
Europeans are not tired.
Their determination must be clear, ultimately the fundamental factor for victory in any war.
It is easier to win with determination and few means than with many means and little determination.
This is the message that Macron wanted to convey.
The problem is his credibility.
The unqualified reaction of the partners, focused on denying the dangerous and unpopular idea of sending troops, has exhibited the prevailing division and fear of escalation.
Only facts can validate such risky words.
Ukraine does not have the ammunition it needs to stop the Russian counteroffensive that apparently has already begun after the fall of Avdiivka nor the long-range missiles and fighter jets that will allow it to recover lost territory.
There France has to portray herself first if she wants to convince others later.
Macron has set the bar very high.
Anything less is now implicitly recommended.
This is said by the president of the only EU country with a nuclear weapon.
It seems like a macronothing, a verbal excess characteristic of a president as intelligent as he is impulsive.
It is not.
The French strategy expert Bruno Tertrais reminds us in his latest book: “All effective deterrence is a subtle dosage of clarity and calculated ambiguity,”
(Pax atomic? Theory, practice and limits of deterrence,
2024).
France is also now the only EU country with the right of veto in the Security Council and, consequently, the one with the most arguments to speak face to face with Putin.
He tried to appease and convince him before he invaded and now he is the one who challenges and threatens him.
Also at stake is his traditional role, the
grandeur
, the international rank and the deterrent sense of his
force de frappe
, today in war and tomorrow in peace.
The European balance was broken in 2014 and the deterrence system, under the American nuclear umbrella, is corroded by the doubts brought about by Trumpism.
Macron wants to restore deterrence, including nuclear deterrence, and do it from Europe if it is no longer possible to count on the United States.
So that Ukraine wins over Putin, but above all so that Russia does not win over Europe in the future.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
Keep reading
I am already a subscriber
_