World News

Macron's Address

Strangely enough, it was even more interesting than Trump’s address, which wasn’t really worth discussing. Trump spoke for a long time but said little of substance, which was expected. Macron also spoke without much clarity, but at least there was a chance he would announce some significant decisions. Spoiler: he didn’t.

For the most part, Macron tried to stir fear with his fantasies about Russia in an attempt to pressure the government into allocating more money for weapons. This is where his claim about Russia building 4,000 tanks by 2030 came from. I think everyone understands that this is completely unrealistic, given that Russia barely manages to produce a hundred or two tanks per year, even under wartime conditions.

That said, Macron did explicitly state that more weapons are needed, while also insisting that the French army is already the most effective in Europe, meaning no further strengthening is necessary. I wonder what the French military handbook says about a soldier’s actions if he hears a suspicious buzzing sound in the sky while outside of cover?

Regarding Ukraine, Macron once again reiterated that there should be no ceasefire and that the war must continue "until the last Ukrainian." According to him, peace will only come with a "pacified Russia." In polite circles, such statements are usually backed by a commitment like, "Therefore, I am providing Ukraine with €5 billion in military aid from French army stockpiles." But Macron struggles with this—he wants to be a hero at someone else’s expense.

Before his speech, he also tried to single-handedly introduce an utterly ridiculous and unrealistic ceasefire plan, which proposed halting deep strikes. I don’t know what Zelensky did to upset Macron to the point where he decided to forbid him from bombing Russian oil refineries. Fortunately, no one takes Macron seriously, so even the UK rejected his plan. However, it’s known that Macron, Starmer, and Zelensky are once again trying to come up with another peace plan to present to Trump. I expect the outcome to be the same as their previous attempts.

Behind the scenes of his grandstanding, Macron and Starmer were reportedly trying to convince Zelensky to accept Trump’s demands, restore relations, and sign a resource deal. In other words, there’s no real effort to replace the U.S. in supporting Ukraine—Macron himself spoke about peacekeepers again. And once again, he made it clear that nothing is guaranteed (as we know, France is very reluctant to send troops without U.S. backing), that peacekeepers won’t be stationed at the front lines, won’t engage Russian forces, and so on.

In short, I am convinced that Macron understands Trump’s "deal" is inevitable and that there is no alternative. He is simply trying to increase his leverage. In the worst case, he’ll say he did what he could and blame everything on Trump. In the best case, he’ll pretend that peace in Ukraine was somehow his personal achievement.

If Macron wanted to make real decisions that could shift the course of the war—such as announcing that France is seriously committing to supporting Ukraine with weapons and funds—he would have done so yesterday. There won’t be a better moment, especially now that U.S. military aid has been suspended. Since he didn’t make such an announcement, I doubt he ever will. And neither did any other European leaders at the series of unusual emergency summits.

Macron has zero leverage over Trump because he would have to answer a simple question: Why should the U.S., which has invested $350 billion in the war (according to Trump) or $114 billion (according to the Kiel Institute), listen to France, which has contributed only $4.8 billion—less than Poland, Sweden, or Denmark? And you can be sure Trump will ask Macron exactly that.