Germany caught between Macron’s provocation and Russia’s exposure, and an exhausted Ukraine

Not long ago, less than five years ago, French President Emmanuel Macron, sitting in his plain white shirt on a black leather sofa he had placed in the famous Golden Salon of the Élysée Palace—where Charles de Gaulle, the founder of the current regime known as the “Fifth Republic” in post-WWII France, also worked—was giving an interview to the famous The Economist magazine that would cause an uproar across the world, especially in the Atlantic front. In this interview, which he gave in French as is the custom, he spoke of the “brain death,” “la mort cérébrale,” of NATO. Of course, The Economist translated this as “the brain death.” Those who took this statement out of context preferred to see a parallel and continuity with the term “obsolete,” which the then-US President Donald Trump also used for NATO. However, Macron was expressing this not to establish continuity with Trump, but on the contrary, in opposition to him.

Interestingly, while one actor in the context that led Macron to use such a sharp phrase was the US, the other was Turkey. Macron was resentful that Trump had suddenly withdrawn US troops from the region, paving the way for Turkey’s Operation Peace Spring, as Turkey added a new one to its series of military operations in northern Syria, and based on this, he spoke of the existence of three fundamental crises. The leadership crisis stemming from the US’s unwillingness to lead, the solidarity crisis he exemplified by claiming that Turkey was adopting a divergent stance in the region and within NATO, and finally, the inadequacy of Europe’s capacity, especially in the military field, were the “deep problems crystallized” by Syria.

In order to overcome all these problems, Macron argued that “the strategic goals of NATO must be clarified immediately.” Macron painted a highly pessimistic picture, stating that if measures were not taken, Europe would be “on the edge of a precipice” and that he was not sure whether NATO’s famous Article Five could be invoked if necessary. This outburst by Macron was met with calmer and more cool-headed reactions, as was the case with other more recent French excesses similar to the one we discussed last week. The French themselves accused Macron of being “drunk on power.”

Five years later, Macron managed to cause an uproar again with another statement. The entire press was filled with reports suggesting that Macron was advocating for sending troops to Ukraine. In fact, Macron was not that sharp this time. The statement in question was given in response to a question asked at a press conference. Last week, on Monday, February 26, 2024, Macron hosted over twenty European heads of government and ministers from a few other Western countries at an informal invitation in Paris. The slogan “We are neither resigned nor exhausted!” announced by the Élysée Palace itself, in response to the state of “exhaustion” that is frequently put forward and even easily observed these days regarding Europe’s support for Ukraine, also revealed the purpose of this invitation.

Macron spoke at the press conference held after this meeting. When asked whether the West would eventually send military units to Ukraine, Macron stated that “there is no consensus today” on this issue, and then continued with the phrase “mais en dynamique,” which we can translate as “but in practice,” stating that “nothing should be excluded,” “rien ne doit être exclu.” And he added: “We will do everything necessary to ensure that Russia does not win this war.” When asked to clarify France’s position on this matter more clearly, he preferred to acknowledge that there was a “strategic ambiguity,” “ambiguïté stratégique que j’assume,” and clearly wanted to raise a bit more doubt.

There is undoubtedly a provocation here, or more accurately, a desire to mobilize. There are many reasons to think that Macron did this intentionally. In the story we recounted at the beginning of the article, there was a Macron who aspired to European leadership and called for it; in fact, it is the same this time. On the other hand, we can also think that he may have wanted to worry Russia by creating a deliberate ambiguity. Although other European leaders, led by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, were quick to declare that sending troops to Ukraine was out of the question, President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin still did not refrain from stating that they had weapons capable of hitting Europe and the US in response to such a step, and that this would lead to the danger of a nuclear conflict.

Just at this moment, it began to be written in the Western press that Macron and Scholz did not like each other and that the disagreement between this duo was essentially destroying European support for Ukraine. It is reported, based on French officials, that Macron is not pleased that his statements intended to create anxiety in Russia were immediately dismissed by Scholz. It is claimed that it was seen “from the very first day” that the chemistry of this duo did not match. While Macron thinks that Scholz is “a leader who cannot think beyond the short term and lacks courage and perseverance,” it is stated that there is an impression in Berlin about Macron as “a monarchical figure with grand visions who is better at preaching than executing.” It is also claimed that Macron’s condemnation of allies who only offered to send “helmets and sleeping bags” to Ukraine at the press conference was a reference to Scholz’s refusal to send weapons to that country in the days when the outbreak of the Ukraine war was expected, and his offer to send only about five thousand helmets. It is really difficult to understand why Macron is still dwelling on this, as Germany has since become the second-largest military donor to Ukraine. It is also expected that Germany, which has stopped using Russian natural gas coming through the Nord Stream pipelines to the detriment of its own industry, will take further steps tomorrow. It is certain that Macron aims to provoke Germany as much as Russia.

Russia did not remain idle in the face of France, which wants to provoke Germany more in favor of Ukraine. Russia, which obtained the audio recording of a conversation held by German military officials via the WebEx platform, revealed both that these officials were discussing the provision of Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine and, through the mouths of these officials, how British military officials work in Ukraine. Germany did not deny that this audio recording was real, and Russia argued that this situation showed the acceptance of the British presence in the Ukrainian field and that they were facing the “collective West” on the ground. Scholz was already against providing Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine. It is, of course, impossible to know whether the admission of the audio recording had an effect on this hesitation of Germany, but the fact that Germany is the second-largest donor should never mask its reluctance to participate more directly in the war. Macron had also stated that an alliance should be formed for “deep strikes and therefore medium- and long-range missiles and bombs,” without explicitly stating whether he would target Russian targets in Ukraine or inside Russia. The Germans have serious doubts about this as well. Russia’s obtaining and publishing the mentioned audio recording may have eased Germany’s hand, considering this reluctance, as much as it shook Germany. Although, it is worth remembering that in addition to cutting off Russian natural gas, Germany also started to provide Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine, which it was also reluctant to provide before.

Under conditions where the Biden administration’s support package for Ukraine is blocked by the US Congress, where Ukraine’s resistance to Russia will evolve or how much longer it can continue depends largely on whether European countries can increase their support for Ukraine. If the Biden administration cannot find a way to strengthen the US presence here by the end of the summer, European countries, and especially Germany, can be expected to waver more. In a possible Trump presidency, this wavering could turn into European countries making less consistent decisions with each other. It will be much more difficult for a Europe without US support to become reckless enough to risk the possibility of a nuclear war. Under these conditions, it is also a matter of curiosity what kind of impact Russian and Chinese broadcasts, which have begun to be felt even in Turkey, will have on Central and Eastern European countries, especially those with a common Slavic culture, which feel more anxious because they are closer to Russia. It should not be forgotten that a party advocating for the end of support for Ukraine in Slovakia came to power, albeit with a coalition. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced at a press conference held in Kyiv with Bulgarian Prime Minister Nikolay Denkov that they had only received 30 percent of the 1 million artillery shells that Europe had previously promised and admitted that it could only provide half of by spring, let alone half. If the trend does not change, the summer months will be quite difficult for Ukraine.