" The deployment of Western troops on the ground in Ukraine should not be ruled out in the future.", a statement that sparked a strong reaction from a large part of the political class and the European population. Indeed, no one expected such a statement from French President Emmanuel Macron during the conference for the defense of Ukraine held in Paris on February 26, 2024. On March 7, in front of opposition parties as well as his two former predecessors, Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande, President Macron came back to the issue, stating: "We cannot afford to set limits against an enemy that imposes none." Decoding and analysis.
Ukraine in Trouble: Consequences for the Western World
In the first instance, let’s recall the facts. Ukraine is in a difficult phase of the war, the European population supports the conflict less than in 2022, and according to a recent survey fromEuronewsless than 10% of the population believes in Ukraine's victory. This is very low compared to the support it received two years ago following the Russian invasion of its territory.
Speak about Ukrainian defeat would be too premature, but for now, the advantage lies with Putin's Russia. To rephrase: the advantage is with a dictatorship crushing the last bastion of European democracy.
We're never too reminded why we can't let Putin's Russia win this conflict. First, Ukraine has been sacrificing part of its population for a decade, in order to contain its invader - Russia has been in Ukraine since 2014. Since 2022, it has set itself up as a bulwark of democracy in the face of autocracy. If the Kremlin wins, we open the door to all the world's authoritarian regimes, sending them the following signal: "if you want to acquire new territories, new resources, just invade your neighbor by force, we - the West - won't budge." We are opening the door to a generalization of conflicts from Taiwan to the Koreas, via a frontal Iranian attack on Israel, not to mention the extension of the Russian Federation into the Caucasus, the Baltic States or Poland. We'll be sending out a strong signal of weakness. Of a Europe weakened beyond its current state, notably by our lack of action towards Gaza, which contributes to our fragility.
Right now, all the signs are that Europe is about to abandon Ukraine to its fate. Firstly, we have seen that Europe has failed to deliver on its promises, sending just 30% of the million shells promised to Kyiv. European chancelleries are crying "out of stock" - they've already sent all the surplus they had. But shell production is not keeping pace. Unlike Russia, the West does not have a war economy, and its factories are not running at full capacity to produce shells. Russia's forecast for 2024 is nearly 2.7 million shells, according to the Kyiv Independent, we don't even come close.
What was supposed to be a lightning operation in February 2022 drags on and on
Putin is no fool, far from it, he's a strategist. He follows a very precise methodology, although his calculations concerning his Special Operation The company's plans for a lightning strike in 2022 turned out to be false, so it attacked when the international situation allowed. At that time, the recent elections in Germany, France in the midst of a presidential campaign, a decline in American influence on the international stage,acentuated by their controversial withdrawal from Afghanistan. This marked the end of the war in Afghanistan, a war that had proved to be a major strategic error and an open grave for young Americans.
The suspense of the American and European elections
Today, we are again on the eve of a conjecture that will be favorable to it with the possible election of Donald Trump in the United States, who would recast the idea of NATO, and its financing. What's more, Trump recently stated that he would push Moscow to do as it pleases with NATO members who have not met their military spending targets. " Reaffirming his attachment to Russia, but above all his detachment from European affairs. Europe needs a jolt to understand that it cannot, for the time being, shoulder its security alone.
The European elections, and the rise of extremes across Europe, are driving the whole of Europe into the arms of populism. Since the outbreak of the invasion of the Ukrainian territories, Europe has faced two winters of crisis. Indeed, rising prices and falling living standards have contributed greatly to these movements. But let's not forget, in France, whether it's Marine Le Pen's far right or Jean-Luc Mélenchon's far left, both parties are paid or have assets in Russia.
One wonders: who, for years, has been hammering home the idea of extending an olive branch to Russia, promoting the idea of ending the war in Ukraine with a peace process that would involve leaving the invaded territories under Russian control? The two above-mentioned parties.
This is the case in France, but also in other European countries. Numerous articles demonstrate this, including Françoise Thom's book Putin or the obsession of power, which demonstrates the links between Russian bot farms and populist parties in Europe.
Not to mention a loss of credibility in the West, which denounces Putin as a war criminal following his exactions in the Ukraine, as in Butcha, Marioupol and Bakhmut, but remains silent in the face of the Netanyahu regime's exactions in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Syria and Lebanon, a disproportionate reaction despite the exactions of Hamas on October 7, 2023. Once again, Putin has succeeded in changing the way the world sees him, and the relationship they have with Europeans. Still and always seen as colonialists, imperialists.
Farmers' anger in Poland and elsewhere
We could then ask ourselves what our solutions should be. What should Europe do? In such a situation, there's a very real risk that populist parties will come to power in the European elections. But for these parties, for the moment, the war in Ukraine is the cause of all Europe's worries. The agricultural crisis is being recuperated and amplified in order to put the blame on Ukraine's possible entry into the Union, and the invasion of Ukrainian products into the territory, to the detriment of national farmers. This is particularly the case here in Poland, where agricultural anger has been rumbling since early December, blocking the Ukrainian border. This crisis was initially neglected by the Polish elites, who, in a period of transition of power, no party wished to assume responsibility. The crisis has worsened in recent weeks with various pressure tactics by Polish farmers, resulting in increased tensions between Warsaw and Kyiv.
The problem of Ukrainian products on the European market was not the core issue at the start of the protests. In fact, the fundamental problem in the agricultural crisis comes down to a feeling of lack of consideration for the work carried out by the profession, an ill-calibrated and ill-supported Green Deal, and an ever-widening distance in understanding between the urban and rural populations, but also a European policy that is not the same between the different countries of the Union, putting farmers in competition even within the common market in addition to foreign trade.
All these problems have one obvious culprit: the war in Ukraine!
Rising prices in Europe? War in Ukraine. Energy shortages? War in Ukraine. Agricultural anger? War in Ukraine. In the end, it's easier to turn the population against a common enemy than to try and solve systemic problems. A number of current issues are linked to the war in Ukraine. These are not the parties that are going to push for investment in a common European defense, or a war economy, since for them, too much money has already gone to a war whose stakes are beyond their understanding of the world around them.
The latest data from IFOP (Institut d'études d'opinion et marketing en France et à l'International), from the sixth series of polls on Ukraine, reveal that negative or very negative opinions towards Ukraine are more frequent among voters of certain parties. Thus, 41% of Jean-Luc Mélenchon voters, 51% of Marine Le Pen voters, and 68% of Eric Zemmour supporters express an unfavorable view of Ukraine. In contrast, only 26% of government party supporters share this negative opinion.
The bait of war in Ukraine then became an advertisement for their election. And it didn't take long for populist conspiracy groups to pick up on the fact that the so-called mainstream parties were calling for all-out war in Europe, for direct armed confrontation with Russia.
On March 7, the French president continued in the same vein
On March 7, Emmanuel Macron reaffirmed before the opposition parties and his two former predecessors, Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande, a "strategic ambiguity" This was a new tour de force for the President, against a backdrop of disavowal by a majority of his European and American allies. A new tour de force on the part of the President, in a context where a majority of his European and American allies have disavowed him. Against a backdrop of the deployment of Exercise Dragon24 in Poland, part of the STEADFAST DEFENDER series, NATO's biggest military exercise since the turn of the century. An exercise which, for the Army Chief of Staff, Pierre Schill, on social networks: "once again, NATO's credibility and determined commitment to its defensive and dissuasive posture." A French army, more ready than ever for a potential armed confrontation on European soil.
It is for these reasons that some observers denounce Emmanuel Macron's statement as having done a disservice to the democratic cause in these times of European elections. If we were not at such a pivotal moment in international politics, all that would have been needed would have been a common will on the part of the European - Western - states to relaunch the war economy machine and hope to defeat Russia in the long term, with millions of shells delivered to the Ukraine.
The current situation also stems from Western responsibility for managing the Ukrainian crisis. If the West had sent military equipment, like Poland, which is one of the nations that has contributed most to the war effort needed in Kyiv since the start of the high-intensity conflict. If the Europeans and the USA had sent the Leopards, Challengers, F14s and other cruise missiles and artillery systems, Russia would not have had the means to resist, and the advance we saw at the end of summer 2022 would have been tenfold and the war could have been over.
Europe and Washington were afraid, and gave Moscow the dangerous opportunity to reconsider and adapt. Let's not forget that, with the exception of the war in Afghanistan, Russia - which can be equated with the Soviet Union - has never lost a war. But as we all know, with ifs, you can bottle Paris.
Louis Sandro Zarandia
EN 
FR