French President Emmanuel Macron ignited a fierce debate last month when, after a gathering of European leaders in Paris, he suggested that the option of sending Western troops to Ukraine should not be ruled out because “we will do everything needed so Russia cannot win the war.”
Although the United States and several key NATO countries, including Germany and the United Kingdom, were quick to push back against the notion of sending troops to Ukraine, even in a noncombat role, Macron’s pointed message amounted to a cri de coeur that the very real prospect of former President Donald Trump returning as U.S. president means America may no longer be a reliable ally.
“If we consider that this war determines our future, which I deeply believe because our security as Europeans is at stake, should we give over our future to the American electorate?” Macron said at a post-meeting news conference. “My answer is no. No matter how they vote. So, we don’t need to wait for the result.”
There is a growing fear in Europe that the tide of the Ukraine war is turning in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s favor and that Americans, in the thrall of Trump, the GOP presidential nominee-in-waiting, are turning their backs on Europe.
“We do not want to see President Trump back as president because that would really be an existential threat to the alliance,” retired British Army Gen. Richard Shirreff, who served as NATO’s deputy supreme allied commander from 2011-2014, said in an interview on Sky News last month.
“There is real risk of Trump, if he gets in as president, pulling America out of NATO. It’s no secret that he despises NATO … and I am 100% certain that he will try it on this time around,” Shirreff said, expressing a widespread European opinion. “Now, in my view, is the time that the West, that Europe should be, in a sense, smashing the glass on the fire alarm [and] start making assumptions that it will have to fight without American support.”
[See: A future President Trump wouldn’t really pull the US out of NATO, would he?, Washington Examiner Magazine, Feb. 27]
“It’s our future. It’s Europe’s that’s at stake. It’s up to Europeans,” Macron said. “We have to be able to continue without them. Not out of defiance. Not out of pessimism. Not because we’re afraid. Just because it’s up to us. It’s what we have to do.”
Not every NATO nation was as quick to dismiss the idea of sending troops to provide logistics and training support to war-weary Ukrainian soldiers.
Among the tasks NATO troops could perform without being in direct combat include “demining, cyber operations, or arms production,” according to French Foreign Minister Stephane Sejourne.
Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas told Politico’s Power Play podcast that “everything” must be on the table to help Ukraine beat Putin.
“I think it is also the signals that we are sending to Russia, that we are not ruling out different things,” Kallas said. “Because all the countries have understood that we have to do everything so that Ukraine wins and Russia loses this war.”
“Nothing can be taken off the table. No option can be rejected out of hand,” Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis said. “Times like these require political leadership, ambition, and courage to think outside the box. [Macron’s] initiative … is well worth considering.”
As Macron traveled around Europe last week, warning against “cowardice” in the face of Putin’s threats of retaliation if NATO troops appear on Ukrainian soil, the French president found a kindred spirit in Petr Pavel, president of the Czech Republic.
“I endorse searching for new ways, including continuing the discussion about a possible military presence in Ukraine,” Pavel said in a joint appearance with Macron. “Let’s not impose limits on ourselves if we do not have to.”
“The war in Ukraine has been a turning point for European defense,” Charles Fries, deputy secretary-general in the European Union’s diplomatic arm, said in a recent Center for Strategic and International Studies online discussion.
“The EU is Ukraine’s largest financial supporter, €88 billion [$95.8 billion] so far, with €50 billion [$54.4 billion] in addition agreed between now and 2027,” Fries said. “In parallel, the EU has launched its largest military mission in its history to train the Ukrainian army. The EU will have trained 60,000 soldiers by this summer.”
The billions in European economic assistance have been a real lifeline to Ukraine, helping to pay for pensions and salaries to keep the government solvent, former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said.
“The problem is the Europeans just don’t have much in their stockpiles, and they say they’re going to do more and produce more, increase the production of these weapons and ammunition and so on, but it won’t appear on the battlefield until 2025 or perhaps even beyond,” Gates told a recent Washington Post forum. “The only real military lifeline is the one from the United States, and as we all know, that one is, shall we say, on pause right now.”
“We need to go the extra mile,” admitted Fries, who said a newly unveiled defense industrial strategy will aim to increase European production capacity beyond ammunition and missiles.
“I think it’s a new illustration that Europe makes progress only in very difficult circumstances when I would say when Europe has a knife at the throat.”
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, well aware Trump has publicly threatened that, if elected, he would cut off aid to Ukraine to force it to make peace with Russia on Putin’s terms, has been busy signing separate security agreements with more friendly nations.
So far, six countries — the U.K., Germany, France, Denmark, Canada, and Italy — have made defense pacts with Ukraine.
There are many Republicans in Congress who say it’s high time Europe stepped up and did more heavy lifting when it comes to Ukraine and argue the U.S. shouldn’t be making open-ended commitments to fund the war forever.
In comments at the Munich Security Conference last month, Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) said the $61 billion supplemental aid for Ukraine bottled up in the House would not “fundamentally change the reality on the battlefield.”
But that misses the larger point, countered Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT), who argues the loss of credibility would come back to bite the U.S., especially if America needs help from NATO allies countering China in the future.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
“Europe will say, ‘Hey, the United States is not with us. We’re not going to be with them. If there’s something they want to do in the Pacific, for instance, let them deal with China,’” Romney said in an appearance on CNN. “We need to make sure that the world knows we will stand with Ukraine. I can’t guarantee, as J.D. Vance indicates, that this is going to mean that Ukraine is successful on the battlefield. But I can guarantee it shows the world that we’ll stand by our friends.”
“All these people are watching to see — can you count on America? Or is America so isolationist it doesn’t care what happens to the rest of us?” Romney said. “If that’s the case, by the way, if we cede leadership, if we’re no longer the leader of the free world, if we’re no longer the arsenal of democracy, then the world is going to look for different leaders. And I know at least one player that’s happy to step into that role. And that’s China.”