Donald Trump said that he would not protect a European country that does not pay its share within NATO. This was all that it took for Emmanuel Macron to feel invested in a new mission to replace the possible end of American leadership. It was his opportunity for chest puffing and letting on that sending troops on the ground in Ukraine should not be ruled out.

Agitation on television panels

Despite the systematic rejection of this idea by all NATO countries, we were treated to an unprecedented agitation on all French television discussion panels. Far from being relevant or plausible, Macron’s proposal is more an expression of France’s deep and understandable desire to distinguish itself.

It is one thing to see Macron playing – and quite poorly – at General de Gaulle, it is another to see so many established commentators grant credibility to the idea put forward by Macron. Most of the “analyses” proposed have, in two respects, ignored the role played by the United States. First, they deluded themselves about the possibility of pursuing NATO activities without American support, even though, historically, it was the Americans who would set the tone, make the decisions, and direct the operations.

Secondly, and in our view, this is even more serious, commentators almost all tended to ignore the role played by the United States in the preparation and pursuit of this war. The Americans not only wanted it and caused it, they made it inevitable. Everything had to be done to get Russia involved in Ukraine, to subsequently justify sanctions, the exclusion of the Swift system, the end of the sale of Russian gas to Europe, and the destruction of the Nordstream gas pipeline. The sanctions were not a consequence of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Rather, sanctions were an objective that the United States had set for itself and the provocations that made inevitable an invasion were the best way to achieve that objective. In short, Russia had to be brought down economically, and a proxy war was the way to achieve this goal. It would be a prelude to the other war, the one that had to be waged against China, this time using Taiwan as a pretext.

These pundits thus failed to mention several basic facts: the enlargement of NATO from 16 to 30 members up to the Russian border, the installation of military bases in all the East European countries, the American refusal to include Russia into NATO, the withdrawal of the USA from the ABM treaty in 2002, the promise made in 2008 to include Georgia and Ukraine into NATO (despite repeated warnings from Russian leaders and American experts), the installation of anti-missile shields in Poland and Romania, the financing and preparation of the Maidan coup d’état, the political control of the country by the Americans, the refusal to apply the Minsk agreements, the training of Ukrainian soldiers, the arming and fortification of Ukraine, the installation of chemical laboratories, the withdrawal of the USA from the INF Treaty (intermediate nuclear forces) in 2019, the rejection of the 2021 proposal of negotiations on security in Europe, and the withdrawal of the promise not to install nuclear weapons on Ukrainian soil. In short, the war in Ukraine is between the United States, using Ukraine as a proxy, against Russia.

Commentators have also ignored the role played by the United States in the continuation and intensification of this war. They sabotaged the negotiations that were about to be concluded in April 2002 between Zelensky and Putin and then went on to finance Ukraine and provide it with weapons so that the war could continue.

Many American leaders (among them Lindsay Graham, Mitt Romney, and Adam Schiff) have said it, and the Rand Corporation wrote about it, providing a road map to follow (“Extending Russia”, 2019): there was an advantage for the United States to use Ukraine as cannon fodder to weaken Russia without endangering the lives of American soldiers. The money invested in Ukraine would also be an investment in the military-industrial complex. To weaken Russia, it was a godsend. Of course, with such a cold-blooded strategy, there is zero empathy for the Ukrainian people.

In short, the United States lit the fuse, set fire to the powder, and then added fuel to the fire. But none of this appeared in the “analyses” offered on TV panels. It was almost as if the United States was just a bystander.

Most on-set analysts interpreted each of the Russian reactions to American provocations as evidence that Russia wanted to reconstitute the USSR. The role played by the United States was overlooked. The Americans were in the blind spot of their discourse.

Other reasons explaining Macron’s intervention

De Gaulle wanted to lead Europe in the direction of independence from American hegemony. Macron wants to play the role of conductor, but in the opposite sense: as the one responsible for implementing the anti-Russian policy of the United States. De Gaulle opposed NATO, Macron is positioning himself to lead it to replace US authorities who are increasingly inclined to throw in the towel and drop Ukraine because it has lost and become useless against Russia.

A French-led NATO is just a fantasy. France will not replace the United States as the head of NATO. The USA would never allow an independent European army to exist outside of its control, even less so under French leadership. They would put pressure on Atlanticist Germany, Great Britain, or Poland to sabotage it.

The existence of NATO, under the thumb of the United States, makes the birth of a European army impossible. As for “European defense”, it is a flattering slogan to conceal the subordination of Europe to the United States and its use against Russia. After the failure of the Ukrainian proxy, Europe is the replacement proxy designated to continue the confrontation with Russia.

Are there other reasons that would have pushed Macron to make such statements? The hope of making France play a major role, legitimate in itself, will remain illusory as long as it is only an auxiliary of the United States. But Macron’s remarks always have the advantage of creating diversions, among other things, about the genocide in Gaza which the French authorities de facto support. The International Court of Justice ruled that there were plausible grounds to conclude that Israel was responsible for genocide in Gaza.

It is no longer enough to camouflage this support by cloaking oneself in a fake battle against anti-Semitism, the resurgence of which would cause concern. The genocide has become too brutal to let news about the horrors experienced by Gazans be silenced. The damning facts showing the genocide taking place have gradually entered the public space. To shut the gate, some commentators fell back on blaming Netanyahu and others highlighted Biden’s distance from Netanyahu. But, given the scale that the genocide is currently taking, something else was needed.

Macron’s statements came at the right time. On all television sets, everyone was talking about the war economy, the dangers of a Russian invasion of Europe, the need to prepare, and the relevance of Macron’s remarks. The Gaza genocide and the Western, including French complicity, went under the radar screen of mainstream media.

Diversion also serves to hide the explosive internal situation in France. (see, for example). When there is so much unanimous, exclusive, insistent, fanatical media hysteria, it is because there is a danger to be exorcised.


We have a triple phenomenon. Diversion in the face of the absence of an independent policy distinct from the United States. Diversion from the complicity with the Gaza genocide. Diversion from the perilous domestic situation.

Nor can one forget the sell-out of French industry to American interests (e.g. Alstom), the annihilation of France’s position in Africa, the negation of French culture, the other cheek turned after the slap in the face concerning the French submarines that were supposed to be sold to Australia in 2021. The toll being heavy, Macron’s martial declarations were needed to renew and refresh the concept of flight forward. Ultimately, this will be his contribution to history.