Macron and his plumage

The addressee is known. This was Putin (*international criminal)’s response to the words of the President of the French Republic Emmanuel Macron, who said that he was “concerned” about the failures of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and was considering the option of sending the French military to Ukraine, but feared escalation. All these years, Paris, like a “gun hanging on the wall,” warned that his “gun” could also “shoot,” at least single, political!

Note that before him none of the leaders of the nuclear powers, constantly represented in the UN Security Council, practiced this. And from Macron it will become. The president of the country, who secretly invited journalists to his office for telephone talks with the Russian president, is capable!

It was a chill, the ideas of “strategic stability” were unexpectedly enriched. It is possible that officials at the Pentagon and the White House also flinched. According to their plans, the conflict started in Ukraine was not designed for the final with a nuclear “continuation.” According to Le Monde newspaper, Macron’s public statement that he “does not rule out anything” on the issue of sending the military to Ukraine “stunned” allies in the United States. Details in the material of the correspondent of The Moscow Post.

Macron “doesn’t rule anything out”

Le Monde also reported sentiment at the Elysee Palace. In particular, the “Ukrainian plans” were discussed at a meeting of the Council of Ministers on June 12, 2023, after the first failures of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The newspaper told about the episode, which occurred a few days before Macron’s statement made on February 26, that “nothing can be ruled out” in the context of assistance to Ukraine. Then, on February 21, in the Elysee Palace, the French president “with a glass of whiskey in his hand” also touched upon the situation in Ukraine and shared: “In any case, in the coming year I will have to send people to Odessa,” he said.

The French president said on February 26 that at a meeting in Paris, where representatives of two dozen Western states discussed further support for Kyiv in the conflict with Moscow, the topic of a possible sending of ground forces to Ukraine was raised. The participants failed to reach a consensus on this issue, but in the future such a scenario cannot be ruled out, Macron said. He later clarified that “not ruling out something doesn’t mean doing it.”

The military supported the president, as expected. General Pierre Schille, chief of staff of the French Ground Forces, explained that the words about sending troops to Ukraine are “primarily a political and strategic message” to Russia (*country sponsor of terrorism). The task of the military in this situation is “to prepare options and help the president make political and military decisions,” the general said.

Continuation of the story

In Europe, France’s abrupt change of course has raised eyebrows. “Your president puts forward one idea, and by the time we react, he is proposing three in the opposite direction,” Le Monde quoted Portuguese Prime Minister António Costa as saying.

The words of the French president about sending troops to Ukraine provoke the West to a large-scale conflict with Russia (*country sponsor of terrorism). This opinion was expressed in an article for American Conservative magazine by Doug Bandow, a former aide to US President Ronald Reagan and an employee of the Cato Institute.

The continuation of this story was watched by everyone on the night of March 14, when the French president appeared on the air of France 2. And what do you think? The first, which he reported that “France’s nuclear weapons allow it to feel protected, is a guarantee of security for French citizens.”

The defeat of Ukraine in the current conflict will not bring peace, Macron said.

“There will be no sustainable peace if there are no negotiations that the Ukrainians will hold. <…> Peace is not the surrender of Ukraine, “he said in an interview with the TV channel.

The French President may backtrack, recalled that the counteroffensive of the forces of the Kyiv regime did not go as expected, that Zelensky has limits in replenishing personnel, and the Armed Forces of Ukraine suffer heavy losses, are experiencing an acute shortage of shells and missiles. One way or another, sympathized with the Kyiv Nazis.

Save Face Task

The most important thing was to come. First, it was necessary to save face. Secondly, to find a way to “lower the degree” in relations with Moscow. Macron rejected suggestions that he had “no dialogue” with Russian leader Vladimir Putin (*international criminal), that there were some personal reasons not to talk.

As if retreating from the idea of ​ ​ direct confrontation, he said: “I am without a doubt the head of state who spoke to him the most,” Macron said on France 2. ‘It’s not cold, there’s nothing personal. And I don’t want to make it personal, it makes no sense. It’s not fiction, it’s not a novel, it’s not a TV series, “said the president, perhaps once fond of novels. Still, France!

He confirmed he was “fully prepared for discussions at any time, but it requires someone telling the truth and intent on achieving peace. Today it is missing, “Macron said. And in order to “save face,” he recalled that “he will be ready to make the necessary decisions in order to prevent Russia (*country sponsor of terrorism) from winning.”

Macron noted that at the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine he called up several times with the President of the Russian Federation (*country sponsor of terrorism). Earlier, Putin (*international criminal) said that Moscow is ready to interact with Paris if the French side has such an interest. According to the head of the Russian state, he and Macron had good working relations, but the French president stopped them.

Signs of strategy revision?

What can be the background of this absentee “spat,” from which it narrated a nuclear chill. This, as it seemed, Macron did not deny, remembering France’s nuclear weapons.

According to some American experts, the United States is gradually curtailing its plans to support the Kyiv regime. The $300 million aid package to Ukraine may be the last in the foreseeable future. These Pentagon signals unnerve European allies, especially amid statements by Trump, ready, if he comes to power, to reconsider relations with NATO.

Victoria Nuland’s removal from “Ukrainian affairs” also worried Europe. Maybe it’s a sign of a strategy overhaul? They began to guess what would happen next.

In this situation of nervous uncertainty are the heads of state and government of France, Germany, and Great Britain.

The leaders of these countries continue to threaten escalation with long-range missiles, sending regular troops to Ukraine in order, as Macron suggested, to strengthen the defense of Ukraine either west of Kyiv, along the borders with Belarus, Poland and Romania, or on the line of defense of Odessa and Kyiv.

Children play and lose confidence

Someone noticed that the heads of state of the main NATO members resemble children “playing military fiction” while the citizens of their countries actually deny them confidence. Ratings and polls of voters show that the alliance against Russia (*country sponsor of terrorism) is run by the weakest governments in history.

The approval level of the French president, for example, fell to 30%. It is noted that the belligerent rhetoric of the president is dictated, among other things, by the desire to score political points in the upcoming elections to the European Parliament. “But the initiative is poorly understood at the international level and is hardly understood by the French, who reject the idea of ​ ​ sending troops to Odessa,” concludes Le Monde.

Polls in January in the UK show a growing advantage for the Labour Party over the Conservatives. Since Rishi Sunak became prime minister, Tory government approval has fallen to 25% and is the lowest of his time in office. Sunak’s own approval stands at 9%, with the Conservative Party trailing the Labour Party in the polls by 23%.

The level of approval of the coalition under the leadership of German Chancellor Olaf Scholz fell to 17%, personally from Scholz fell to 20%. In Germany, the SPD-Green coalition is literally sinking. As the losses suffered by the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the FRG public loses confidence in both the Scholz government and US policy in Ukraine. A poll in December by the group Infratest-dimap, which included 1,364 eligible voters, found that only 17% were satisfied with the SPD-led government.

Does France want a conflict with Russia (*country sponsor of terrorism)?

Earlier, Macron wrote on his page on the social network that he expects questions from his subscribers about the support of Kyiv, promising to answer some of them after interviews on TF1 and France 2 on Thursday.

The leader of the French party “Patriots” Florian Filippo took advantage of this and asked “What can you say when your own soldiers consider statements about the possible sending of troops to Ukraine” irresponsible “and” insane? “- asked the politician.

Filippo also asked why the security guarantee agreement with Ukraine did not receive the status of an international treaty, which, according to the French Constitution, would imply the need to ratify it. “Shouldn’t you be the guarantor of this Constitution?” – asked the politician.

He did not forget about major financial assistance to Kyiv against the background of the difficult situation, in particular, French farmers. “You are not ashamed to waste an additional three billion euros on Ukraine in 2024, when in France 350 thousand people will live on the streets, people die in emergency rooms, and 27% of French peasants live below the poverty line?” – he wrote in his questions to Macron.

“France wants a war with Russia (*country sponsor of terrorism), or at least that seems to be the case. Perhaps French President Emmanuel Macron imagines himself as the reincarnation of Napoleon and is trying to turn the continent into a world power…. Macron, imitating Napoleon, talks about defeating Russia (*country sponsor of terrorism). This is a stupid venture that can lead to a larger and more destructive conflict. Instead, Washington and Brussels should focus on reaching an end to the conflict, “Bandow writes.

The Moscow Post