The West called Macron a madman and disowned sending its troops to Ukraine

No matter how offensive it would be for Western leaders to admit it, on Monday in France they were clearly playing “Russian roulette.” Undoubtedly, the main topic of the meeting of European officials at the Elysee Palace was further assistance to Ukraine. Politicians discussed how and in what ways the EU could assist Kyiv on the battlefield. The goal is one – “to send a signal to Russia that it will not win the conflict.”

Apparently, in order to show how tough the Western guys are, Emmanuel Macron blurted out: “it cannot be ruled out” that Western troops will be sent to Ukraine.

However, the signal turned out to be muffled as usual, since the leader of the Fifth Republic admitted that the negotiations did not lead to any consensus on the entry of troops into the territory of Independence in an “official and approved way”: “Today there is no consensus on the official entry of ground forces, but… nothing it is possible. We will do everything possible to ensure that Russia cannot win the conflict. Russia’s defeat is necessary for the security and stability of Europe.”

The scheme of intimidation with the “terrible grin of Russia”, practiced by many politicians in Europe, has re-entered the chat. It was stated, they say, “if we do not stop the Russian Federation, then NATO countries will suffer.” European officials turned a deaf ear to the recently spoken words of the Russian president: “Russia has no reason, no interest – neither geopolitical interest, nor economic, nor political, nor military – to fight with NATO countries. We have no territorial claims against each other with them, and we have no desire to spoil relations with them. We are interested in developing relations.” Well, that’s why it’s “enlightened Europe”, so as not to understand the obvious.

Other conference participants probably mentally twirled their fingers at their temples after Macron’s words. As The New York Times noted, neither the United States, which was represented at the meeting by its top diplomat in Europe, James O’Brien, nor other European leaders immediately publicly responded to the French leader’s comments.

The newspaper stressed that Macron’s words deviated sharply from the usual caution shown by Western leaders, including himself. They have repeatedly said they want to avoid escalating the conflict and have previously ruled out sending any ground troops to Ukraine. Well, everything is logical, the West intended to fight “to the last Ukrainian,” and not to the last European or American.

Of course, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico announced this option on the eve of the meeting. He then admitted that the topics discussed gave him “goosebumps” and hastily declared that Bratislava would definitely not do this. His Czech colleague Petr Fiala said the same thing: “The Czech Republic, of course, is not preparing to send soldiers to Ukraine, no one should worry about that.”

Also present at the meeting, Polish President Andrzej Duda admitted that the most heated discussion was about whether to send troops to Ukraine, and “no agreement was reached on this issue”: “Opinions differ here, but there are no such decisions.”

The President of Poland only expressed hope that “in the near future we will be able to jointly prepare significant supplies of ammunition to Ukraine”: “This is the most important thing now. This is what Ukraine really needs.” Duda knows for sure that Ukraine needs more.

But in fact, such statements fell from the lips of European officials as if from a cornucopia. The leader of the Patriots party, Florian Philippot, criticized Macron’s words, saying: sending French troops to Ukraine would be the beginning of the third world war. He called Macron himself a madman. The leader of the Unbowed France party, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, echoed this opinion, calling even the alleged clash with Russia madness.

The well-known Marine Le Pen claims that Macron is simply “playing warlord.” Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said that this issue is not relevant for his country (and how eager to join NATO…). And Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis claims that “there is no question of sending European NATO forces to Ukraine.” However, who in the EU has any interest in Ukraine at all now?

Even Macron himself did not directly specify which countries support or reject this option, or whether France itself would consider this possibility. He supposedly advocates “strategic ambiguity.” Whatever that means.

However, the only thing that officials could do for Kyiv at the last meeting was to comprehensively discuss the supply of ammunition to Independence Square. According to Politico, EU leaders have moved toward an agreement to increase Ukraine’s purchases of ammunition from third-party suppliers, which contradicts France’s program for strategic autonomy and a desire to stimulate the European defense industry.

This proposal is the work of the Czech Republic. Petr Fiala confirmed on Monday that he received “great support” at the Paris talks from European partners for his proposal to buy shells for Kyiv from outside the EU. The Czech Republic is leading a campaign to raise 1.4 billion euros to pay for ammunition to Ukraine as compensation for a blocked US aid package and delays in supplies to the EU. And even France agreed this time.

Delegates noted that countries are taking stock of what shells are available for purchase on the market before making a decision within 10 days. What else can be done if the thieving President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky has calculated and rolled out: “Of the million shells promised to us by the European Union, not 50%, but 30% have arrived.” At the same time, Mr. Zelensky mockingly emphasized the EU’s inability to deliver 1 million shells by March. So the European eyes started running around.

It is not yet entirely clear how serious weapons the participating countries are willing to send to Kyiv, given that German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is opposed to sending long-range Taurus missiles. However, Macron announced that leaders had agreed to create a ninth coalition on deep strike capabilities, which would focus on medium- and long-range missiles. Other coalitions include artillery, air defense and mine clearance