Recent weeks have seen a flurry of pronouncements from Macron, the President of France, whereby he seems to be channeling the “inner Napoleon” that abides hidden in the hearts of French leaders, the same way Hitler seems to be in those of their German allies.
Macron went on record as saying that NATO countries should not exclude sending troops to support Ukraine on a “bilateral basis” saying:
“There is no consensus at this stage … to send troops on the ground,” Macron told reporters. “Nothing should be excluded. We will do everything that we must so that Russia does not win.”
Needless to say, this caused an immediate reaction from Russia, with a statement that any foreign troops in Ukraine would be considered as legitimate military targets by the armed forces of the Russian Federation.
A number of western leaders spoke up to claim that there were “not currently any plans” to send troops from NATO, but this mealy-mouthed response reminds me of their claims that they had no plans to send tanks, or missiles, or F-16s. It seems that the faux outrage and denials from the White House and other Western seats of power is more a complaint that Macron let the cat out of the bag a bit too early.
As Robert Fico, Prime Minister of Slovakia, and major opponent of NATO military aid to Ukraine, said:
“I will limit myself to say that these theses (in preparation for the Paris meeting) imply a number of NATO and EU member states are considering that they will send their troops to Ukraine on a bilateral basis,” Fico told a televised briefing following a meeting of Slovakia’s security council.
“I cannot say for what purpose and what they should be doing there,”
He also noted that such an action would massively increase the risk of all-out war.
No More Red Lines
Macron further upped the ante on the 7th of March, stating that France no longer had any “Red Lines” in its support for Ukraine, and that there were no limits on what France would do to militarily support the war.
The question is: Why would NATO countries be discussing sending troops to aid the collapsing Ukrainian fascists? One can only assume that, having invested so much (approximately 300 Billion dollars so far, that we know of), Western leaders are so heavily invested that they would rather start world war three than admit the failure of their plans.
The deployment of “bilateral” contingents under the several “bilateral” security agreements European countries have signed with Ukraine is them trying to “bait the trap”, as we can be sure that the leaders of France, and any other country reckless enough to take such a step, would immediately try to invoke Article 5 of the NATO treaty as a result.
Are they naïve enough to think this will be enough to make Russia back down and crawl to the negotiating table? But if so, this is a major miscalculation, as Russia already considers itself under attack from NATO, particularly due to their well-founded suspicions that advanced weapons systems are being operated by well-paid mercenaries and NATO specialists.
War of Aggression
It is now obvious that the disastrous Ukrainian offensive of 2023 was planned (and led) [mostly] by senior officers from the western alliance constitutes “a war of aggression” and is contrary to the very founding principles of the alliance.
So far, Russia has shown great restraint, particularly in not taking down the NATO reconnaissance flights that “mysteriously appear” right before major Ukrainian air and sea drone and missile attacks on Crimea and the Black Sea Fleet.
Furthermore, I suspect that the Russians military would be fully justified to hit NATO forces who insert themselves in the conflict zone. They also now know the weakness of NATO military doctrine, the moral bankruptcy of western political leaders, and the myriad shortcomings in both training and NATO standard equipment.
Hence, a battle hardened and evolved Russian force has lost any fear they may have had of western “wunderfwaffen”, so much so, that they can be reasonably sure that NATO has squandered the vast part of its arsenal supplying the Banderites, and must be far more confident of their ability to defeat NATO than they were even a year ago.
Once can only think that western leaders have made the age-old mistake of falling for their own propaganda. All the made-up media stories of Russian weakness and lack of resolve seem to have been taken seriously. The insane western idea that a war can be won in the media, rather than on the battlefield, the “Informational Warfare” so beloved by the farm boys from Langley, Virginia, is about to come crashing down like a house of cards.
Macron must remember that he is no Napoleon, and even to look back to June 18, 1940 when Charles de Gaulle gave one of the greatest “Appeals” in French history. From a BBC studio in London, the general called for the French to resist Nazi occupation: “Whatever happens, the flame of the French resistance must not and will not be extinguished!”
Let’s compare Macron’s speech and rhetoric to that of Charles de Gaulle and you will see that there is no comparison, and that is why nobody is taking the modern-day Napoleon seriously. He may have to go down with his political ship and fan club, and history will not be kind.
Charles de Gaulle’s Appeal of 18 June 1940
I like when I accidentally learn something that I did not know, while researching something else, for instance, after the fall of Paris to Nazi Germany, I knew Charles de Gaulle had escaped to England and the official French government soon capitulated and the subsequent Vichy government immediately got in bed with the Germans.
I did not know, however, that Charles de Gaulle was actually sentenced to death for delivering his rallying speech, the “Appeal” for the French to continue the fight, as it was against the official policy of the new French Vichy government.
Now Macron is going against the will of the French people, and most Europeans, by pushing for direct armed confrontation with boots on the ground in Ukraine.
It is also interesting that Churchill and the BBC organized this 1940 radio frontal attack, an historic rallying cry, and the only question now is who is lurking in the shadows prompting Macron to put NATO and everything it supposedly stands for at risk of losing creditability, or even to bring about its total demolition.
And we know only too well the interaction of French and Russian history and how that ended on Russian territory. The association of Napoleon with the idea of compensating for perceived deficiencies through assertiveness or aggression is something that Macron manifests.
“Macron does not speak for France”
It should also be noted that French militancy over Ukraine has greatly amused Russian observers. A joke doing the rounds on Telegram channels runs something like this, “How many French battalions does it take to defend Paris? Nobody knows, the French always surrender the city without a fight!”
I, myself, am reminded of the discussion of 1814, when Russian and other allied troops were advancing toward Paris. While taking the keys of the city from Talleyrand as a sign of the city’s surrender, Tsar Alexander I was asked if he wanted the Austerlitz bridge renamed, his response was “Tell them I will cross it with my army, that is enough”.
It should be noted that the Prussians wished to burn the city to the ground, and only the Russian Tsar’s intervention and insistence of a peaceful end to the war saved Paris from such a fate.
If France starts another war with Russia, will the Russians be so magnanimous this time?
Henry Kamens, columnist, expert on Central Asia and Caucasus, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.