Starmer and Macron have now “swung back behind” their idea of sending a force into Ukraine. Macron is cheerily chatting about how it will engage with Russia if attacked, under the “normal framework of engagement”. He explains that the only thing that could trigger a confrontation would be Russian aggression. Starmer is talking about how sanctions can be increased “to support the US [peace] initiative”.
Also, I notice this, which I came across in the Daily Mail:
Zelensky said it was too early to discuss specific roles of future European forces in Ukraine, after a key aide, Igor Zhovkva, told AFP in Paris that Ukraine needed a robust European presence and not just peacekeepers.
Zelensky said the question now was about ‘who will be ready’ to take part in such missions. ‘It’s too early to say,’ he added, referring to what role the forces could play.
He added: ‘No one wants to drag any country into a war.’
He said European contingents would be important for control.
‘In any case, a contingent is a combat force, but they are there primarily to control the situation, monitor the situation, conduct joint training, and ensure that Russia does not have any desire to return with aggression,’ he said. [1]
That is, as we have noted before on this site, what is being discussed in not a “peacekeeping” force, but a Euro-Ukraine army. When Zelensky says “No one wants to drag any country into a war.” one can almost hear his intelligence chiefs licking their lips and rubbing their hands in the background as they do exactly that. They need Macron to be gullible enough to say that only Russia would start an aggression, and he delivers. Naturally; as soon as such a Euro-Ukraine army was in place there would be some provocation from the Ukrainians.
There are several odd things about all this. Firstly; there is no ceasefire or even any realistic prospect of one any time soon, so what are they talking about when they talk about policing the ceasefire? Secondly, a ceasefire implies Russian agreement. Is Russia going to agree to a Euro-Ukrainian army? It hardly seems likely. Thirdly, this seems to depend on US support, but the US has indicated they will not provide security guarantees for Ukraine – for the specific reason that they don’t want to get dragged (by Kiev) into a war with Russia. Fourthly, Starmer, (and EU Council President António Costa), are talking about maintaining, even increasing, sanctions; but it is clear that any movement towards peace is going to have to go in the opposite direction. All in all, it seems like Starmer and Macron and Costa are planning for some kind of victory parade. Very odd given the realities on the battlefield and the US acceptance of some of Russia’s key demands, (no NATO for Ukraine and a loss of some territory). But it is driven by a deep need to be seen to have defeated or at least contained Russia. It is a psychological game of power. They need to maintain the idea that they are the rulers of the world. This is expressed, of course, as defending the “rules-based international order”, which is code for their dominance. A psychologist might say they are having trouble adapting to changing reality. I think everything spins off this, rather than any kind of objective analysis of the situation.
It looks like they still think they can make the reality they want with economic power. It is a game of narratives. They do not need to completely make the reality they dream of. They need to do the minimum which enables them to produce a narrative which is, at least to them, is just about believable. It may be that part of the tale-telling about how Russia wants to invade Europe is about creating a threat they can then claim to have faced down. Look, they will say, Russia was about to invade Europe, but our tough action made them back down.
In short, European policy appears to be driven almost entirely by a need to maintain a narrative that they have defeated or at least contained Russia and are thus, still the rulers of the world, and Russia is still in a subjugated position. But, if this war does wind down, it seems likely, that, gradually, over time, economic exigencies will come to the fore and, slowly, relations with Russia would be restored. This, then, can be understood, as temporary posturing.
Notes