While in Russia the polls were open and ministers and chiefs of staff were registering at the polls to vote, like Sergei Lavrov, Sergej Shoigu and Valerij Gerasimov, for the new president who was confirmed to be Vladimir Putin, who won as expected with a almost Bulgarian percentage; The Macron case was raging in France, perhaps leading the paradoxes of Western politics.
In Ukraine, the Rada, the Ukrainian parliament, said that who goes to fight on Ukrainian soil is decided by the Rada and not by Macron. Furthermore, asserting that the French will not go there, thus demonstrating the sacred right to sovereignty of the Ukrainian people.
And how did Russia react to the French president’s statements? An interesting article on the subject was published by V. V. for a Belarusian newspaper of which we report some thoughtful passages.
“Some political scientists explain Macron’s action with his “political style”.” For example, Alexey Chikhachev, an expert from the Russian Council for International Affairs and the Valdai International Discussion Club, believes that the French president only wanted to “start a discussion on the possibility of sending NATO troops to Ukraine.” “The fact is that Macron likes to address difficult problems emphatically, but at the same time he doesn’t offer any solutions right now, but he just leaves them in the air,” Chikhachev explained.
In the article by V.V. it is stated that: “It is quite possible that this is the reason, but there are some nuances. It should be remembered that at first, in the first days after Macron’s statement, the reaction of NATO allies was overwhelmingly strictly negative. European politicians said that there was no question of sending military personnel, but that it would be better to increase supplies of weapons. But later the circle of supporters of the statement gradually began to expand. For example, on March 12, during the conference “25 years of Poland in NATO”, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said that the presence of NATO forces in Ukraine is not something incredible. “I appreciate the initiative of President Emmanuel Macron,” underlined the head of foreign policy department. “NATO soldiers are already in Ukraine,” he said, adding that he did not want to reveal how “some politicians” did it or which states sent their military there.”
By the way, Military-Political Review has already written about which countries and who were sent to Ukraine, in the article titled: Mysterious Presence: The Truth About NATO in Ukraine. It is found online.
And we read in V.V’s article: “Czech President Petr Pavel also supported the “Macron initiative”, who stated that the presence of NATO troops in Ukraine “will not violate any international rules” if they do not participate in the battles” . “Shortly before, Lithuanian Defense Minister Arvydas Anusauskas had explained that sending NATO troops to “Independence” involves only “participation in training, not military missions”.
Basically according to the military expert and journalist, Macron did not so much want to open a discussion “within the Alliance between the allies, as Macron himself tried to justify himself later, but he actually carried out a test on the reaction of the ” society”” and, first of all, of Moscow.
According to the author of the article, Macron tried to understand what Moscow’s real red lines are. As if Macron had elected himself “for this mission – as if to atone for the guilt for “insufficient participation in the conflict in Ukraine””.
After all, France has often been criticized by NATO for providing too little equipment. And again V.V. states: “The French president’s shocking message can also be seen as the beginning of an already planned information operation to legitimize the gradual entry of NATO troops into Ukraine.”
Furthermore, according to analysts, Macron’s next likely step will be, as has often been done by the Parisian establishment within NATO and the EU, to start forming a so-called “coalition of interested countries” and according to some signs , this action is already happening. Of course, in the initial phase, the “coalition” will function outside the framework of the North Atlantic Alliance and with a small number of participants. But over time, the circle of “interested parties” will expand more and more, until almost all NATO members will be completely involved in the “coalition”.
And in fact talks are expected soon between Paris-Berlin-Warsaw. Among the examples of French initiatives supported by a coalition we always remember the attack on Libya, the consequences of which we are still paying for today.
According to Russian analysts there are many examples of this operational mode: “coalition of interested countries” followed by NATO intervention; and lead: “An example of how Western countries thoroughly approach the gradual creation of a multinational group of troops for a large-scale aggression against a victim country is the preparation of Operation Desert Storm (an invasion of the forces of a multinational coalition led by the United States in the territory of Iraq and Kuwait annexed by it, 17 January-28 February 1991)”.
To create an “invasion army” made up of a coalition of “interested states” (USA, France, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Egypt, Syria, Persian Gulf monarchies and other states – about 30 countries in total), the separate operation “Desert Shield” was carried out (7 August 1990 – January 1991). According to his plan, formations, military units and aviation of the armies of the United States, France and other allies were gradually transferred to the territory of countries bordering Iraq (Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, etc.) . At the same time, ships of the US 6th and 7th Fleets were redeployed to the Red and Arabian Seas, the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf. As a result of a carefully planned and well-organized operation, the countries of the anti-Iraq coalition were able to quickly create a powerful group of various types of armed forces numbering 541 thousand people and prepare it for use.
Returning to V.V’s reasoning, he states: “And, if the hypothesis about the true essence of Macron’s statement is correct, we will soon witness how the troops of the “coalition” will “appear” in Ukraine under the auspices of France (at first – France): engineer units “to clear minefields and remove unexploded ordnance” – naturally, to protect the “civilian population”; means of strengthening the air defense system (anti-aircraft missiles and radio systems, and with them foreign combat crews) – all for the same “civilian population”; reconnaissance and electronic warfare equipment – for the same purposes, and also together with combat crews of foreign military personnel. In this mass of foreign specialists, other “specialists” of the special forces will be lost (this has been taught to them for a long time). At the same time, an air group of the “coalition” will be stationed in the territories of the states adjacent to Ukraine (Poland and Romania) – for alleged air patrols. There is also no doubt that if (or when?) F-16 planes are transferred to the Ukrainian Armed Forces, they will also be flown by foreign pilots.”
Finally V.V. he glosses: “We must therefore admit that there is nothing new in yet another spectacle that is unfolding before us right now on the political scene of old Europe. But the actors are terrible: the new generation of European officials cannot be compared with the Cold War tyrannosaurs of the last century. All falsehood is visible to the naked eye.”
It is an interpretation of the facts on which we need to reflect, in light of the Libyan experience and other theaters that have occurred in the years from the First Gulf War up today.
Graziella Giangiulio