NATO's Dangerous Miscalculations

I have no idea who’s telling Macron what to say—I tend to doubt it’s the French military. However, Arnaud Bertrand has done us a favor by translating and transcribing former French foreign minister, Dominique Villepin’s, critique of Macron’s crazy “threats” to Russia (coming after the French military was chased out of West Africa). Those threats were seconded by Polish foreign minister, Mr. Anne Applebaum, who claimed that the French and Poles were going to keep Russia off balance and hesitant, trying to guess what NATO would do next. That reminded me of this scene, with Indiana being Putin:

Anyway, here’s the transcript of Villepin’s remarks. It’s nothing exactly earth shaking, just common sensical considerations that demonstrate the out of touch recklessness of the West. However, I call particular attention to the concluding paragraph, in which Villepin rightly observes that this war on Russia is a global conflict in which “all fronts are linked”: militarily, geographically, economically.

Arnaud Bertrand @RnaudBertrand

Masterful takedown by Dominique de Villepin, former French Prime Minister, of Macron's utterly irresponsible rhetoric on sending NATO ground troops to Ukraine (Villepin himself calls it irresponsible).

I translated it in full, because I think it's so important people are aware of the extreme danger behind Macron's (and some other NATO leaders) attempt to escalate the conflict:

"For this debate [over sending ground troops] to have been useful, it would have first been necessary for us to be able to answer 5 questions. Five risks associated with this escalation, this step we would be taking if we were to send ground troops, send fighters. Five risks.

The first is the expansion of the conflict. If we send ground troops, do we know if on the Russian side others will send, on the other side, ground troops? Will we face African fighters, will we face Asian fighters, will we face Middle Eastern fighters in this global south that also wants to take on the West? First risk.

[Host comments: This does not seem to me a favored scenario...]

If Westerners, Europeans, French send troops there, don't you think that solidarity will also play on the Russian side? I think we still need to ask ourselves that question. In any case, our diplomacy has not done what it should have to isolate Russia. If Russia were isolated, we would know it... I think, by the way, that we are more isolated, unfortunately, than Russia.

Second major question: new front. Risk of a new front. I warned, I was among the few voices to say 'be careful, Ukraine is a dangerous situation but what happens if another front opens?'. The front in Gaza and the Middle East has opened. But there are other fronts that can open: in Korea, in Africa... And so, are we going to wage war like this on all 5 continents? This reality must be taken into account: the world is not limited to the drama and tragedy of Ukraine. It turns out that America is a global power and that we claim to be a global power too, so we are concerned by the major balances and the order of the world, and unfortunately our diplomacy does not sufficiently take into account these disorders which concern the Congolese, the Sudanese, etc.

Third risk which is important: the terrorist risk. I am not thinking of terrorism that would come from our opponents in Ukraine, I am thinking of opportunistic terrorism. When there are situations of this type of disorder, terrorism strikes. And I remind you: we have planned here in France not a year of war, but a year of celebrations. In a few months, we will commemorate the 80th anniversary of the D-Day landings and delegations will come from all over the world. We are going to spend several months celebrating the Olympics. If we need to mobilize, let's mobilize, but maybe it should have been done a bit more: I don't see a war economy, the preparation of minds in terms of civil defense and hybrid warfare, I see nothing... You don't just pull the idea of going to war in Ukraine out of a hat without having prepared a little...

Fourth risk: we are on the eve of an American election that will determine the new world order. It's a safe bet that we are heading for a new era of isolationism and protectionism like the world has never seen. We are seeing a split in this new world order between Trump and a China that has just celebrated the reunion of its parliament and is becoming more introverted, more focused on its security than ever. This is a general global context that must be taken into account.

And then there's one last element that may be one of the most important, which is the nuclear risk. I know the good experts, the great experts who speak on this subject and I respect them immensely. But sending ground troops, fighters, places us in a situation in terms of deterrence that we have never known. Forty years of Cold War: the forces of the Warsaw Pact and NATO forces never clashed. And it's not by chance: it's because of a reality that relates to the grammar of nuclear.

The rule of deterrence is based on the principle of mutual assured destruction. That is, if one uses the bomb and the other responds, we're all dead. [...] I think the nuclear grammar means that today the risk of NATO ground troops in Ukraine presents a risk and that this risk, for responsible powers, is unacceptable. I travel enough around the world to have observed something for 15 years: the use of nuclear weapons is based on political cultures, societal cultures, and civilizations. The world is changing and what seemed unthinkable 10 or 15 years ago appears today differently: the rhetoric of the enemy, the hatred of the other, has developed to a point where we live in an international community that may want to settle scores with the other. [...] Today, and I'm not just thinking of the Russians, let's not forget nuclear proliferation with countries like Pakistan and many others that now have nuclear weapons.

And it is in this that the principle of responsibility is essential, and there is a rule that must be drawn from all this: the logic of force, when not controlled, leads to an escalation that can be deadly. This is what makes the situation in Ukraine a real danger and it's also what makes - because this principle of the logic of uncontrolled force I would gladly apply to the situation in Gaza - it's what makes the Israeli policy applied today to Gaza a real danger. Because there is no control over the use of force. And when you look [...] all fronts are linked, all crises are linked."

2:54 / 7:37

10:55 PM · Mar 9, 2024

A final note. I listened yesterday to Kevork Almassian interviewing Swedish military and political analyst Mikael Valtersson. Valtersson made a variety of interesting observations, mostly regarding Sweden’s historic neutrality—which become national policy only after centuries of war making against Russia and Poland had culminated disastrously with the entry of the Russian army into Paris, following the disastrous March on Moscow. He also discussed how that neutrality played out later—especially in WW2 and during the Cold War. His analysis seems to me to be unsparing of Swedish waffling, while also putting it in the context of Sweden’s very real predicament, situated among powers far greater than Sweden.

Valtersson clearly believes Sweden should continue its difficult policy of neutrality, rather than foolishly abandoning it. Unfortunately, Valtersson’s command of English, while quite good by most standards, is not up to Almassian’s and not such as to allow him to fluently explain all that I’m sure he would have liked to have said or expanded upon. I don’t intend to be harsh in any way. I’m just saying that I sensed that his presentation was more limited than it might have been in Swedish or (I’m guessing” German. Still, it’s good to see a thoughtful man doing his best to communicate to the masses on alternative media on this major global issues—and from a different perspective.