We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
From dove to hawk: Explaining Macron’s Russia-Ukraine journey
French President Emmanuel Macron has been on quite the journey over the past two years.
In the days leading up to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s fateful decision to invade Ukraine in February 2022, Macron took on the role of chief peacemaker in a bid to avert conflict. Once the war began, he cautioned against Russia’s humiliation, offered Putin countless off-ramps, and pressed Ukraine to engage in peace talks. Fast forward to today, though, and Macron has become arguably the transatlantic alliance’s leading Russia hawk, even going as far as openly discussing the prospect of deploying French troops to Ukraine’s front lines.
What caused such a remarkable transformation? French officials close to the president claim that as the facts on the ground changed, so did Macron's strategic thinking. But as my Eurasia Group colleague Mujtaba Rahman teased last week, that explanation doesn’t fully hold up. Let’s see why.
Macron's shuttle diplomacy began with the widely publicized “long-table talks” in Moscow on Feb. 7, 2022, when Putin agreed to refrain from invading Ukraine in exchange for “security guarantees.” Then, on Feb. 20, the two leaders spoke on the phone, and Macron went to sleep believing he had convinced Putin to consider peace talks with US President Joe Biden. The rest is history: Putin reneged on both promises, and on Feb. 24, Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Macron’s critics dismiss those early talks as futile, arguing the president was never in a position to deter a Putin hellbent on achieving his imperial dreams (fact check: true).
Macron’s thinking, however, was – and still is – that engagement was justified despite having little chance of success. Otherwise, the Kremlin could have claimed that the West was uninterested in diplomacy and had left it with no choice but war. Trying was valuable insofar as it allowed the West to retain the moral and narrative high ground … whatever that turned out to be worth.
A few months later, in May, Macron gave a speech at the European Parliament where he called on the West not to “humiliate” Russia. This was no slip of the tongue; he reiterated the position a month later in an interview with the French media when he said that helping Putin save face was necessary “so that the day when the fighting stops we can build an exit ramp through diplomatic means.”
The statements drew ire from Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltic States, outraged by calls to give in to an invader that was mercilessly shelling civilians amid then-fresh revelations of war crimes in Bucha and elsewhere.
What was Macron thinking then? At the time, the French leader believed that Russia was going to lose the war – even if at that particular moment it was winning the battle. He was under the impression that Putin knew this and was accordingly open to diplomacy. The hope was that by keeping him onside, Macron could eventually broker a peace deal that would both preserve Kyiv’s interests and pave the way for a new, more “strategic” European security architecture – one where Europe would finally take its future into its own hands and be less dependent militarily on the United States.
But that illusion would not last long.
In the weeks that followed, a series of phone calls with Putin led Macron to the realization that the Russian president had been making a fool out of him all along, hardening the president’s attitude toward Moscow. It was a rude awakening, but the facts didn’t change on him – Macron just caught up to them.
As this reality dawned, Macron’s strategic focus shifted to Eastern European countries, whose support he realized was key to keeping his dream of a “strategic Europe” alive. The problem was that France had historically had tepid relations with this part of the world, starting with Paris’ reluctance to embrace eastern enlargement after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. Macron’s direct diplomacy with Putin in 2022 had only made things worse. Ties needed mending, and these countries needed convincing that the European Union could replace the United States as the guarantor of European security – especially in light of Germany’s increasingly apparent geopolitical timidity and the growing odds of a Trump 2.0 pullback from NATO scenario.
So Macron went to work. At the GLOBSEC security conference in Bratislava in June 2023, the French president called for Russia's outright “defeat” for the first time, after previously speaking only of “preventing a Russian victory.” He also apologized to Eastern European countries for “missing an opportunity” to heed their concerns about Russia’s imperial ambitions, pleaded for a European defense pillar within NATO in the face of Washington’s wavering commitment to the transatlantic alliance, and – crucially – opened the door to possible Ukrainian NATO membership.
The Bratislava remarks were made at a time when the West was cautiously optimistic that Ukraine could reprise the success of its 2022 counteroffensive. The military and political outlook has since darkened for Kyiv. And Macron has grown anxious that – far from bolstering European security, unity, and democracy – the war may end in a Russian victory, which would discredit the European Union and destroy its economy. This concern is what prompted the president to publicly weigh the possibility of deploying French and other NATO troops to Ukraine for the first time in late February, when he replied to a journalist’s question about potential Western troop deployments by saying that “nothing should be ruled out” because “Russia cannot [be allowed] to win this war.”
While French ministers have claimed that he was referring only to support troops and not frontline fighters, Macron has refused to accept that distinction. Indeed, despite earning strong rebukes from the US, Germany, and the United Kingdom, he doubled down recently when he said he would not “initiate” such an escalation but it might become necessary.
So what is Macron trying to achieve now? The first-order reasoning is that he wants to create “strategic ambiguity” – in other words, keep Putin guessing about his intentions to deter further aggression and persuade him to back off Ukraine. But the president also wants to prepare French and Western public opinion for the difficult decisions that may lie ahead in the event that such deterrence fails.
Beyond strategic considerations, there is the question of what role Macron’s ambitions have played in his rhetorical escalation. The French president is often accused of wanting to seize the “leadership” of the European Union, but with just three years remaining in office, he is probably thinking more about legacy than leadership now. And Macron's legacy stakes are certainly high. In 2017, he promised to leave France and the EU stronger than he found them. Seven years later, he faces the rising tides of far-right nationalism and the possibility that a Russian victory in Ukraine could destroy the credibility of the union.
Macron realizes that his ambition of a more “strategic Europe” is a long-term project requiring strong backing from the United Kingdom and Germany. But he is also aware that Berlin is unwilling to face up to this new geostrategic landscape in which cheap Russian gas and unconditional US protection are no longer guaranteed. He is therefore hoping that his “boots on the ground” rhetoric can force Europe to confront existential questions about the continent’s security destiny that leaders like German Chancellor Olaf Scholz would prefer to avoid.
Whether his new position ultimately helps or hurts Ukraine remains to be seen. It’s also unclear whether the French leader will finally put his money where his mouth is. After all, France has been a laggard when it comes to arming Ukraine. But one thing is for sure – the Russia dove of 2022 is now one of the West’s most implacable hawks. Putin no longer has an open line to Emmanuel Macron.
NATO troops to Ukraine? Macron can’t be serious.
Is French President Emmanuel Macron crazy or just bluffing? It’s a question geopolitics experts are confronting after he suggested Monday that sending Western troops into Ukraine to fight against Russia shouldn’t be “ruled out.”
Ukraine seemed to welcome the suggestion of possible European intervention – hardly surprising given Kyiv’s many challenges at this stage of the war.
But Moscow quickly warned that would inevitably lead to a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO. Germany and Poland on Tuesday also pooh-poohed Marcron’s idea.
Would this actually happen? It’s extremely unlikely that any Western countries will put boots on the ground in Ukraine. No one wants a conflict between nuclear-armed powers.
So Why did Macron say this? According to a thread on X by Eurasia Group’s Europe Director Mujtaba Rahman, French sources said Macron’s comments were meant “to reassure Ukraine” and serve as “words of warning to Vladimir Putin.”
Our take: Macron likes to stand out on the global stage, for better or worse. He took a lot of flak for seeming too friendly to Putin early in the war. Making a non-starter threat like this enables him to look tough, without actually having to back it up. Trés shrewd, Emmanuel.
Will Macron’s moves regain him popularity in France?
Carl Bildt, former prime minister of Sweden, shares his perspective on European politics.
Will President Macron, with his new government, succeed in relaunching himself in terms of popularity? It remains to be seen, but I think the odds are there. He clearly faces an uphill battle against the more nationalist forces in Le Pen prior to the European Parliament elections in late May, early June. And that is critical for him. His opinion poll standing is fairly low right now. He really needs to do better in European Parliament elections. And I think, yep, he might do it, but it remains to be seen.How is European support for Ukraine coming along?
That was, of course, a problem with the summit in December where Hungary, Viktor Orban, blocked the expected decision to give 50 billion Euros to Ukraine over the next few years. There's now I wouldn't say white smoke as of yet, but white puffs of smoke at least coming out of the discussions and rather hard discussions in Brussels. And I would expect that at the next summit on February 1st there will be an okay, a green light, for the 50 billion Euros for Ukraine. That is very much needed. And now the question is, of course, what will happen with American money with the mess in the US House of Representatives?
Call to crack down on terrorist content
OpenAI and Anthropic, two of AI’s biggest startups, signed on to the Christchurch Call to Action at a summit in Paris on Friday, pledging to suppress terrorist content. The perpetrator of the Christchurch shooting was reportedly radicalized by far-right content on Facebook and YouTube, and he livestreamed the attack on Facebook.
While the companies have agreed to “regular and transparent public reporting” about their efforts, the commitment is voluntary — meaning they won’t face real consequences for any failures to comply. Still, it’s a strong signal that the battle against online extremism, which started with social media companies, is now coming for AI companies.
Under US law, internet companies are generally protected from legal liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The issue was deflected by the Supreme Court last year in two terrorism-related cases, with the Justices ruling that the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to sue Google and Twitter under US anti-terrorism laws. But there’s a rich debate brewing as to whether Section 230 protects AI chatbots like ChatGPT, a question that’s bound to wind up in court. Sen. Ron Wyden, one of the authors of Section 230, has called AI “unchartered territory” for the law.Fallout from riots in France
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi, everybody, and a happy Fourth to you. Just a couple of days in Nantucket. Very enjoyable. And wanted to talk a little bit about a place that is a little less enjoyable right now, which is France.
You've seen massive riots across the country over almost a week, the worst in nearly 20 years in France, which is really saying something for that country. Social protest is basically taken as sport and riots are frequent. But even in that context, this has been notable and exceptional. What what sparked it off has nothing to do with extending pensions from 62 to 64. Those were major demonstrations across the country, but basically just shut down the economy for a period of time. Not so much violent protests. No, these violent riots and lootings and the like were set off by the French police gunning down a 17 year old French boy about Algerian descent. He was trying to get away from the police. They were trying to stop him. The police immediately said that he was killed in self-defense, that he was trying to run the police over. That turned out very quickly to be a lie because there was video capturing the French gunning at him as he was trying to get away and that it's kind of a George Floyd type situation in France. The response is deeply political. In other words, what you believe about who is responsible depends very little on the facts of the case and overwhelmingly on where you happen to stand politically. On the one hand, you've got Muslims that are seen by the right in France as taking over French identity, as not really being French. Big structural problems in France, in the suburbs outside of the wealthier French cities where most of the Muslim population lives. A lot of drug trafficking there, a lot of violent crime, a lot of poverty. If you ask the average French citizen what percentage of the population is Muslim, on average, they respond by saying a third, which is insane. It's actually some 10%. But that sensibility gives you a sense of how this is played on the right politically in France.
On the left, you're blaming the police, which treats Muslims considerably worse than than non-Muslims in France. One recent study in France showed that Muslims were 20 times more likely to be asked to shown their papers by police than others in routine traffic stops. 17 drivers, almost all Muslims, have been shot dead by the French police in the last year and a half. Now, if you're an American, you you see that and you say, hey, only 17, that's not actually that bad. That sounds like a bad weekend in Chicago, right on the south side. But but this is like in the United States, an issue that has not been dealt with, an issue that is being swept under the rug. Macron needs the police on his side so he doesn't push them very hard. But he has come out and immediately said this was unacceptable behavior and has detained the French police officer. And the hard right is pushing down on Macron really, really strongly as a consequence. Meanwhile, these are not peaceful protests. I want to be very clear. This is widespread looting. This is arson. It's violence, and well over 500 police injured as a consequence of all of it. So it is it is a pretty big deal. The far left in France is condemning the police. They have taken the side clearly of not just the protesters, but many actively even supporting the rioters and the looters, the far right defending the police and specifically the detained police officer and some even talking about these areas of of Muslims in France being called foreign enclaves, even though a majority of those living there are French citizens.
And the danger here is that while Macron is a creature of the center in politically and trying to balance both sides, the reality is that both the far left and the far right are going to get more popular across France on the back of this episode. And so, I mean, democracy and democratic institutions in France are getting weaker. The present trajectory for democracy in France is in trouble, frankly, just much as it is in the United States, much as it is in Brazil, where I just was last week. I am happy to say that after six days of of violence and rioting and looting, today life in France is a lot more calm. Politically, this looks bad for Macron on the international stage. King Charles had to cancel a visit. Macron had to cancel a state visit that was quite important to go to Germany over the weekend. He's got a respite for the time being, but you wouldn't say it's because he's managed it well. You'd say this is a structural problem that is only going to get worse in France going forward, and we'll be watching it very closely.
So that's the news for Monday, and I hope everyone has a happy Fourth tomorrow if you're in the United States, for those that celebrate, as they say, and for all the rest of us, let's keep on keep it on. Talk to you soon.
French riots highlight policing problem
Carl Bildt, co-chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations and former prime minister of Sweden, shares his perspective on European politics.
Does France have a policing problem?
Well, I mean, primarily they got a riot problem. This is a third major wave of severe riots that President Macron is facing. The first was the "yellow vests," as they were called. The second was the protest over pension reforms, which was more overtly political. And this has been triggered by the police killing a young guy in a Paris suburb a couple of days ago. It's a severe issue. They do have a police problem, although substantially less than we find in the United States. Let's see what happens. President Macron has been forced to cancel his important visit to Berlin in order to focus on these issues. Let's see what happens. It's a rather French phenomenon.
What's been the fallout of the coup or the mutiny attempt in Moscow?
Well, the answer to that is that we simply don't know. We don't know exactly what happened during the day of the mutiny of the rebellion. We know even less perhaps of the fallout that is going to play out over quite some time. When these things happened, they fundamentally shake a regime, and this regime has been shaken. Putin is now trying to regain strength in different ways. To some extent, he might succeed. To some extent, it's highly unlikely that he will succeed. So, the development of Russia has entered a new phase. Whether this will have an effect on the battlefield. We haven't seen that as of yet. But there's a lot on this that we haven't seen as of yet.
US intel leak could cause problems in Putin's Russia
Carl Bildt, former prime minister of Sweden, shares his perspective on European politics from Washington, DC.
What's been the fallout from President Macron's visit to China?
Confusion might perhaps be the most diplomatic way of phrasing it. Because whatever he meant to say, he phrased it in such a way that it gave rise to a lot of misunderstanding. It was interpreted, not least on this side of the Atlantic, as a fundamentally different policy on Taiwan. That is not the case. We have fundamentally the same policy in Europe and the US on Taiwan, the One-China policy, not support for Taiwan independence, strong support for Taiwan's democracy, and a resolute opposition to any attempts at changing the status quo by force. That would have been a better way of phrasing it from President Macron side.
What's going to be the fallout from the US intelligence leaks?
Well, I think there will be or there is a certain amount of turmoil here in Washington over it, by necessity. There is a certain amount of surprise in Europe, by necessity. But I think the fallout, as a matter of fact, might be stronger over time in Moscow, because the leaks do indicate that the US has penetrated fairly deep Russian structures, very deeply. I don't think that in terms of gathering intelligence, I don't think Vladimir Putin will take very lightly to this. So my guess is that as a result of intelligence leaks, you will find that more heads rolling in Moscow than heads will be rolling in Washington.
Macron's China visit hasn't moved Xi on Ukraine
Carl Bildt, former prime minister of Sweden, shares his perspective on European politics from Tabiano Castello, Italy.
What's the fallout from President Macron's visit to China?
That remains to be seen. There is still no sign, really, of him managing to move Xi Jinping on the issue of Russia's aggression against Ukraine. President Xi has not yet made that telephone call to President Zelensky that he said he was going to do. He says he's going to do it at some point in time. But whether some point in time is tomorrow or one year from now is left open, so remains to be seen.
What are the lessons of the Good Friday Agreement 25 years ago?
Well, President Biden now goes to Belfast to be part of the celebrations for the Good Friday Agreement. That's good. I think what we can learn from that is both to understand that conflicts of these sorts have very deep historical roots, and secondly, that it takes time to overcome. There is no violence in Northern Ireland. Brexit has created new problems, but there are still sectarian tensions. But peace agreements of this sort, they should be celebrated, but they require maintenance work over time as well in order to really work.
- 25 years later, is Brexit unraveling Northern Ireland’s delicate peace? ›
- Northern Ireland deal: an improvement, but "Brexit is never over" for UK, says David Miliband ›
- EU-China "reset" in limbo ›
- What We’re Watching: A big day for Macron, Taiwan’s friend list, Russia droning on ›
- Xi’s “peace” plan for Ukraine: China “wins” ›
- Backlash from Macron's China visit - GZERO Media ›