In response, US National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said from Washington that “there will be no US troops on the ground for a combat role in Ukraine”, while Britain said it had “no plans to undertake a large-scale deployment” beyond that. A small number of personnel in the country support the Ukrainian Armed Forces, including medical training.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who sat next to Macron at a hastily arranged summit with 25 European leaders in Paris that day, said the meeting participants agreed “there will be no ground troops, there will be no soldiers on Ukrainian territory.” They are sent there.” European countries or NATO countries.”
Heavy artillery bombardment in the Battle of Bakhmut, May 2023.credit: AP
Hungary's President Viktor Orban, who has refused to send weapons to Ukraine since the beginning of the Russian invasion, said the war “has no military solution,” while Slovakia's President Robert Fico, equally hostile to any military support for Ukraine, reiterated his opposition as a matter of “principle.”
Some noted that the fact that Macron's proposal was met with such a strong reaction, and even panic in some quarters, was evidence of how unprepared Europe is to confront Russian President Vladimir Putin if he chooses to test the West, perhaps by launching an attack on Russia. Small, weak states on NATO's eastern flank.
Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 wasn't enough of a wake-up call for NATO, but since Russia's large-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the alliance's armies — which were poised to expand to 32 countries with the addition of Sweden — have been slowly preparing for combat.
Much of this, as many NATO countries privately admit, resulted from public criticism from former US President Donald Trump, who said in 2016 that the alliance was “costing us a fortune.”
“We protect Europe through NATO, but we spend a lot of money,” he said, later saying at a rally that NATO was “obsolete.” Last month, he prepared for another crack when he said during a campaign rally that he would “encourage” Russia to “do whatever the hell they want” to NATO allies who don't spend enough defense money.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg expects that by the time leaders meet in Washington next July, 18 allies will spend at least 2% of their gross domestic product on defense – a significant improvement over 2014 when three countries achieved Just that goal. This year European NATO countries will spend about $380 billion ($584 billion) on defence.
Any ally that does not spend at least 2 percent of GDP on defense should have plans to quickly achieve that goal, Stoltenberg said. But some believe that the matter is more complicated than that. Some countries' defense spending is allocated entirely to NATO, while others may limit their spending to less than 2 percent, but their spending per capita is greater than that of countries meeting NATO directives.
For example, Luxembourg falls short of 2 percent, but it spends more per capita than Poland or France. The United States may spend 3.5% of its GDP on defense, but not all of this is allocated to NATO, as a large portion of its power is deployed in the Pacific Ocean and in its home territories.
But in his tenth and final year as head of the world's largest military alliance, Stoltenberg believes Europe is more prepared than at any time in the past few decades to defend itself against any threat. In the two years following the invasion, he welcomed two new members, which angered Putin but further strengthened the alliance.
“The world has become more dangerous, but NATO has become stronger,” he said at the Munich Security Conference ten days ago. “NATO's goal is to prevent war, and to ensure that there is no room in Moscow for any misjudgment about NATO's readiness and resolve to protect all Allies.”
While Stoltenberg continues to stress that he does not believe there is an imminent threat to a NATO ally – which would require each of the alliance's 31 military nations to come to its aid under Article 5 of the treaty – Western countries are growing increasingly concerned about a potential Russia. An attempt to revive the frozen conflict in Moldova on the border with Ukraine.
In a worrying move, the leadership of the breakaway Transnistria region appealed to Moscow on Wednesday to “stop the genocide” and help the Russians in the region, a call reminiscent of Ukrainian separatists in eastern Donbass, who have asked for Russian help in the region. The beginning of the conflict in 2014.
According to the Transnistrian authorities, about 200,000 people out of less than half a million people are Russians. Moscow also has a military base in the enclave, where about 1,300 soldiers remained after a separatist war over Transnistria in 1992 that killed 700 people.
In his State of the Union address on Thursday, in which he warned of nuclear war if the West deployed troops in Ukraine, Putin refrained from mentioning Transnistria's call for help. But the Russian Foreign Ministry said that protecting the breakaway region was one of Moscow's priorities and that it would carefully study the request.
Justyna Gotoska, coordinator of the Regional Security Program at the Center for Oriental Studies in Warsaw, said there was a clear difference within Europe in terms of threat perceptions and policy priorities. She said that the countries on the northeastern side of NATO felt a real threat coming from Russia.
“They believe that the likelihood of Moscow launching an armed attack on a NATO country is high – although it depends on several factors such as the course of the war in Ukraine, a potential crisis in the Indo-Pacific region, the credibility of deterrence in Europe, and political cohesion.” Within NATO.”
“This perception is reflected in these countries’ investments in national defence, which exceed 2 percent of GDP, and in the rapid strengthening of their armed forces with new capabilities.”
Gotoska said that views in Western Europe were more conservative, as countries such as Germany and Britain did not believe that Russia was capable of challenging NATO countries militarily.
She added: “Despite this, there is a consensus on the need to strengthen deterrence and defense in Europe, but not to the extent that the northeastern border countries deem necessary.”
Oana Lungescu, a former NATO spokeswoman who now works at the Royal United Services Institute in London, said that although defense spending across European NATO allies and Canada has risen by an unprecedented 11 percent over the past decade, or $644 billion, It is still low. not enough.
She said the trend needs to shift towards 3 percent so they can meet capability requirements, prepare for new NATO defense plans and increase support for Ukraine as it enters the third year of Russia's war.
download
“Trump’s statements should focus minds, but more talk of European strategic autonomy risks deepening the transatlantic divide as the world’s authoritarian regimes move closer together,” Lungescu said. “If Europeans are serious about defence, as they should be in a world fraught with risks, they must put their money into the right conversations.”
While allies question the wisdom of Macron's bold statement this week, the man himself on Thursday stood by his call that sending troops to Ukraine remains an option. His concerns stem from a growing feeling that defeating Ukraine would deal a psychological blow to the West and embolden Putin.
These are serious enough issues; “Every word I say on this issue is weighed, thought about and measured,” Macron told reporters. “Nothing should be ruled out. We will do everything in our power to ensure that Russia cannot win this war.”
Start your day with a summary of the day's most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Subscribe to the Morning Edition newsletter.
