NATO soldiers in Ukraine? What does Macron really want

Ovel 70 years of relative peace after the Second World War had cooled the old Europe. And for a long time, its leaders, such as Chancellor Olaf Scholz or French President Emmanuel Macron, believed that it was possible to meet Russia somewhere in the middle and continue trading hydrocarbons and diamonds.

French President Emmanuel Macron caused a political upheaval by stating that "we do not rule out sending Western troops to Ukraine". Although a number of countries have already denied that there will be any British or Italian soldiers setting foot anywhere near Robotyne, the European Union has for the first time thought about its security and accepted that it will not be able to reach an agreement with Putin and that there will be no new Gorbachev in the foreseeable future.

Germany's leadership in the EU was shaken by Chancellor Olaf Scholz's resolute refusal to provide Ukraine with Taurus missiles, because his country would suddenly be drawn into a war with Russia. And the accompanying argument that German engineers cannot do what the British and French can do - adjust the range and control the transferred technology.

It is not surprising that President Macron took the initiative on this issue, although at the last parliamentary session he had already received a portion of criticism from the pro-Russian Marine Le Pen, the leader of the far left Jean-Luc Melenchon and the Socialist Party. They say, how can it be, why should French citizens die somewhere in Ukrainian forest strips?

On the bright side, France supported the Czech Republic's initiative to purchase artillery shells for Ukraine from non-EU countries. So this cooperation can finally deliver to Ukraine about 800,000 artillery rounds of NATO and Soviet calibre, which can be sent to Ukraine as soon as possible. Where will they come from? Mostly from India, which is currently rearming itself at a frantic pace for the excess profits from the proceeds of buying Russian oil.

For the first time, Macron admitted that the European Union's promise to supply a million shells a year ago was reckless.

"The reality is that in the very short term, you can only provide the ammunition that you have in stock or that you produce, just in time," the French president said.

Indeed, an audit of numerous depots and national armies of a number of countries has shown that the armed forces of our western neighbours are in a poor state. And it is quite likely that if they were Russia's neighbours, their capitals would have been occupied in three days.

The lifting of the block on the purchase of shells for Ukraine from third countries and the heated debate in the National Assembly on whether or not to send French soldiers to the war in Ukraine are to our advantage. After all, fear is the driving force behind all wars and the incentive to find the best solutions.

As the United States was deeply mired in internal political strife on the eve of the presidential election, France, as the EU's economic leader, began to realise that no one would help it if Ukraine lost and the Russians moved on to the next target.

Talking about NATO soldiers in Ukraine could become a way for finding ways to freeze the conflict. This will be something similar to the "Korean option", when we have our parallel that divides light and darkness. However, there are pros and cons here, because NATO soldiers on the current demarcation line may mean that it is fixed for the future. So we can forget about the deoccupation of Crimea and control of the Black Sea.

The Europeans do not want this option yet, because they do not live to die on foreign soil from the Soviet guided aerial bomb.

Therefore, Europe is frantically looking for a solution to the current war in the context of unstable relations with the United States. That is why more and more voices calling for a European NATO, where Ukraine, with its excellent experience in a major war, could become a pillar of security. The Europeans are also really concerned with keeping the fighting somewhere around Avdiivka, not in the Bois de Boulogne.

This is beneficial for Ukraine. And we can say that Macron who made us laugh with his phone calls with Putin has a plan B. It is good for Ukraine because France wants to become a leader in Europe. They are tired of the indecision of Germany and Scholz. And now the unprecedented is happening in their parliament - their prime minister, Gabriel Attal, is harshly criticising politicians who have made their careers on cooperation with Russia for decades.

Why is Macron making such harsh statements? He will not run for president again, this is his second term. However, the French president is interested in his own historical contribution and in securing France's leadership in a cooling Europe.

Similar stories are a chance for Ukraine. Of course, Ukrainians and only Ukrainians will be fighting this war on the battlefield and in the rear.

But for the first time, Europe is afraid that they will be next. And the conversations "I'll bring you and the kids some clothes" and "Mom, I liked torturing people so much” (phrases that Russian soldiers told their families, while occupying Ukraine) can apply not only to Ukraine, but also to Europeans tired of someone else's war on YouTube.

It will never be the same again. No matter how much you like Russian ballet and supermodel Irina Shayk, this is not the true Russia. The real one has shown itself in the current war in Ukraine.

Exclusively for Espreso

About the author: Maryna Danyliuk-Yarmolaieva, journalist

The editors do not always share the opinions expressed by the blog authors.