An extraordinary European summit dedicated to Ukraine will be held in Brussels on 30 May. In his invitation letter, European Council President Charles Michel writes that “our unity was our main asset” after the Russian invasion three months ago. “It is the principle that guides us,” he added.
Despite these fine words, however, there are strong tensions between the 27 that shake the traditional leadership of France and Germany, with a series of criticisms of the position of the two countries on Ukraine and above all the desire to maintain a dialogue with Russia.
On May 28, French President Emmanuel Macron, accompanied this time by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, spoke on the phone with Vladimir Putin. Macron’s vain appeals are now innumerable, and once again the reports show no results, with a Russian president increasingly inflexible and threatening. And so a wave of accusations hit Macron and Scholz.
An eerie moat
A part of Europe, especially the former Communist countries, believes that the priority is to help Ukraine militarily and not to seek an honorable way out for Putin. These countries blame Germany for hesitating too much before accepting the idea of handing over arms to Ukraine, while France is accused of keeping alive the illusion of a possible compromise with Putin.
It’s not just about social network criticism. Marko Mihkelson, chairman of the foreign affairs committee of the parliament of Estonia, a country where France has sent troops under NATO, said that Macron and Scholz are “brain dead”, echoing a formula used by the French president two years ago about NATO itself. “It is incredible, France and Germany open the way to more violence from Russia,” attacked Mihkelson.
Former Lithuanian Prime Minister Andrius Kubilius called on the French and Germans to imitate the Lithuanian population, who in three days donated enough money to buy a Turkish drone to be handed over to the Ukrainian army. “It’s more important than these endless phone calls with Putin”, ha dichiarat Kubilius.
A disturbing gap has opened between the “old Europe” of the west and the “new Europe” of the east, to take up a US formula that dates back to the war in Iraq. Paris, Berlin and Rome would like a negotiated end to the war in the name of the continent’s long-term security, while other countries feel encouraged by the initial Ukrainian victories and believe that military victory is possible.
We noticed this split when Macron proposed a European Political Community to avoid integrating Ukraine into the Union too quickly. The initiative was welcomed in the west and harshly criticized in the east.
All the countries of the Union – except Hungary, of course – support Ukraine. But these differences over the objectives of the war put the 27 at risk. Macron’s silence, who has not spoken about Ukraine since his speech on May 9, neither to the French nor abroad, makes his strategy difficult to read. . It is important for the French president to explain and clarify.
(Translation by Andrea Sparacino)