But is it true? We all know that the first victim of war is the truth. Some sources are more reliable than others and in general a party losing badly will try to obscure the facts so as not to hurt morale or sink the interest of 'investors'. Navigating this maze to analyse what we are witnessing takes skills to piece together a narrative which does fit nicely, while remaining vigilant. The story you come up with may explain developments, and predict what will be next flawlessly, even though certain assumptions were wrong. And that may hurt your ability to predict developments further down the road.
A war like the one we're witnessing right now between Ukraine and Russia is a very complex matter, predominantly because NATO is not a unity. NATO is the driving force behind Ukraine ever since the 2014 regime change operation in that country succeeded to bring a Nuland-loyal government to power. Without weapons, ammo and truckloads of money from NATO-countries, Ukraine wouldn't have lasted this long, and probably would have opted to accept the 'Minsk-Accord' as the only realistic way forward, after the resounding defeat of their forces at Debaltseve in the civil war they started with NATO support. Increasingly Western analysts 'discover' that even with support 'for as long as it takes' from NATO countries Ukraine is not going to make it, because NATO itself has reached the limits of what it is able to do. It doesn't have the weapon systems required, it has no more ammo to fork over to Ukraine, and taxing the population of NATO countries to breaking point in order to pay the bills for Ukraine is going to have serious repercussions.
Now, if you accepted my approach to what this war was all about, and that cynical 'regime change' specialists planned it to topple Putin, and regain control over Russia, you already arrived at the conclusion that these 'neocons' failed. In previous contributions I explained how this particular plan was not shared with the Ukrainians, nor the bulk of the NATO-aligned countries. But that the 'neocons' had been driving policy, dragging the rest of the 'shitshow' behind them. With every single armed conflict there are always multiple 'arguments' to support it, or reject it. But which interested party is in the drivers seat?
With Nuland gone, and the US in general taking 'leave of absence', the full burden has been transferred to those warring parties in Europe and Ukraine which were either dragged into this war, or had been cheerleaders from the very beginning, but for different reasons. This is bound to have consequences, more in particular because this 'rag-tag' army lacks a clear policy-goal. Macron has emerged on the side of NATO as some kind of 'Would Be Napoleon'. A 'pitbull', a 'war hawk' who is prepared to take over from the 'neocons', and 'talking the talk' to get everyone in the West on his side.
Interestingly, Dima at 'Military Summary' had this snippet about the French minister of war calling his Russian counterpart to ask for permission to bring French troops into Ukraine. No doubt the call did take place, but did Macron's government ask Shoigu politely to let their soldiers live? This is not as unbelievable as it may sound, if you accept that the Russians already hit French troops in Kharkiv as was suggested around the time Ukraine shot down this cargo aircraft carrying Ukrainian POW's into Belgorod. And the Russian deputy speaker of the Duma warning the French that their servicemen would be a legitimate target if they entered Ukraine.
Now, don't get me wrong, France is the only European country left with a military which is not subservient to the Americans, and capable of producing its own weapon systems and everything they need, including nukes. But they are no match for the Russians, and they cannot supply the other NATO countries in Europe to fill the void left by the Americans as they abandon 'Project Ukraine', which they are bound to do, irrespective of who wins the elections in November. I'm convinced that no American in the top-echelons of the government really fears a Russian offensive to conquer all of Europe. That would not be in their best interest at all. But since Putin is in Russia to stay, and 'regime change' is not going to happen, they must have decided to cut their losses and let Ukraine and Russia go, and focus on the Middle-East, and China, instead.
Yes, I'm out on a limb, speculating, because I feel it is odd that Macron would actually seek to confront the Russians, almost on his own. I can see some benefits for him 'at home', but not when the body bags start pouring in, and France is unable to find the support they need in other European countries. Romania is said to be mobilising so as to take part, and no doubt there will be others, but it would be a very fragile, lightly armed coalition, and financially vulnerable. Stoltenberg launched a plan to issue 'War Bonds' to the tune of 100 billion to keep NATO in the race, but it is likely to be a hard sell. So what is Macron up to?
Since Macron now is seen as 'Boss', he has some leeway to break the stalemate, if he can pitch it as Russia being 'forced' to accept a deal. Which would explain this minister's 'pretty please' call. I hope he will succeed to pull it off if that really is his thinking, because a 'Forever War' with a failed state of Ukraine acting like Hamas, firing missiles, drones and 'special forces' on suicide missions to 'hurt Russia', with Russia setting up a wide perimeter around the territory they sought to protect from nationalist extremists in Ukraine, is going to hurt everybody.
Understand that the above is highly speculative, and based on nothing more than a rumour. It is not a true analysis, and even if accurate, there are plenty of competing groups who want anything, but peace. It is not a sure-fire home run, and it might end in tears for everybody, including France, if they are betrayed by anyone not on the same page. Apart from the possibility that none of this might be true, with Macron motivated by other considerations entirely. In fact, I wouldn't even have brought it up if Macron had not been the last of the 'Mohicans' before February 2022 trying to avoid war. You may argue that his minister of war called Shoigu to tell him that Macron warned the Russians not to go to war, and that now Putin's time is up, because France is going to save Ukraine. But that doesn't come across as a very realistic message under the circumstances, and believe me, Macron's reputation will not survive making a grave mistake politically. I'm sure he doesn't want to be remembered as the president which destroyed de Gaulle's legacy.