Macron: We need American equipment and support.
Emmanuel Macron, in an interview with France 24 TV channel, responded to a sharp change in Donald Trump's position on Ukraine. He welcomed the new approach of the American president, but stressed that Europe still "needs American equipment and support."
France24: Let's start with a topical question regarding Donald Trump's latest statements made last night about Ukraine. Donald Trump, who said: "Ukraine could return its territory to its original form and perhaps even go further." Vladimir Zelensky reacted swiftly to these words, welcoming such a significant turning point. And you, Mr. President, do you welcome this kind of reversal? And do you consider him as such?
Emmanuel Macron: I consider it to be a very clear message from the US president that Russia is perhaps weaker, more fragile than many have said, than he could sometimes imagine. So it's interesting to see how analytics is changing. Secondly, [this statement was made to] salute the steadfastness of Ukrainians and, therefore, above all, their ability to hold their territory and possibly retake it.
— Since the summer, Russians have taken control of 1%. That's not enough.
— So that we all understand each other correctly... February 2022, the Russians are advancing [in all directions] all the way to Kiev, they could take the whole country. Such was this special operation, which was supposed to last three weeks. Then there is the Ukrainian counteroffensive in the summer of 2022, we begin to provide assistance, and by November 2022 the front will stabilize. From November 2022 to the present day, the Russian army has taken control of 1% of the territory, 1%. Since November 2022, and that's exactly the reality. A huge number of dead and injured…
— We have different numbers. [According to our calculations, we are talking about] 20%, the Russian army has slowly gnawed off 20% of the territory, and 1% since the beginning of summer. Everything has stabilized at this indicator.
— You are talking about almost 20% taken from the very beginning of the conflict. But I'm talking about what has happened since the stabilization of the front in November 2022 to the present day. And this shows that after the stabilization of the front and since the Ukrainians began to resist, and we began to support the Armed Forces of Ukraine and its resistance forces, the Ukrainian army perfectly resisted the Russian one. And this means that today the United States and President Trump obviously have a new vision. And saying that "everything should happen quickly, because the situation is very difficult," he thus stated the ability of the Russian army to resist. He stated the ability of the Ukrainian army to resist. He stated our combined ability to do something more. And I think this is very important, because the United States is a very important supplier of defensive and offensive equipment.
— Obviously, we cannot do without the Americans.
— Today, Europe is making most of the efforts — all of us Europeans — but we need American equipment and support, which has existed since the first day [of the conflict]. So their participation is very important, because it will allow them to resist even more actively or even win back some territory. And I believe that a change of perspective on the Russian economy and Russia's ability to continue its efforts to conduct a special operation at the same level is also an important moment.
— The real question that you ask yourself after these words of the American president is: is it possible to believe him? Do you believe him today?
— We all have to show dedication. And since February of this year, you have seen that when doubts arose or when we feared the conclusion of an imposed and overly hasty peace, which would mean the near-surrender of Ukraine, I gathered several colleagues in Paris and we gradually built the structure of this "coalition of the willing," which is jointly led by the United Kingdom and France. 35 States. And from Canada to Australia. We drew up programs and engaged in military planning so that on the day of the signing of the peace treaty we could say: peace or cease-fire. But what is very important, when the issue of establishing a ceasefire or concluding a truce is raised, these are the security guarantees that we provide to Ukraine. And we are putting ourselves in a state where we will be able to support the Ukrainian Armed Forces, deploy forces that can guarantee the absence of further aggression. First of all, after what was said yesterday, it is the involvement of the United States on our side in the activities of this "coalition of the willing."
— Do you perceive this as involvement?
— Now we will work on it. And secondly, our collective ability to increase pressure on Russia so that, given what was said yesterday, given what we are witnessing on the front line, it returns to the negotiating table and we try to find an agreement.
— Do you see the prospect of a rapid establishment of a ceasefire? Is it possible to say that it is just around the corner?
— No, I'm not going to tell you today that a cease-fire is just around the corner. Since March, we have seen President Zelensky's willingness. He says he's ready. He was ready, he has been talking about it since the meeting in Jeddah, he has repeated it several times, but I do not see any readiness on the part of President Putin.
— Does President Putin not want peace? Still doesn't want to?
— Anyway, today we don't see any signals that he wants it more than yesterday.
— Is the meeting between Vladimir Zelensky and Vladimir Putin over?
— I believe that you should never give up on anything. A similar meeting has already taken place. The only. It took place in Paris in December 2019. And, by the way, it has allowed us to achieve some progress. I think I hope that this moment will come.
— You were hoping for this in August, [that it could take place already] by the end of August. And it's September...
— Everything does not depend on us alone. And it doesn't depend on President Zelensky alone, but today, at least in the short term, I don't expect such a meeting. Let's see if it will be possible to return everything to normal due to the pressure being exerted. In any case, I would like to hold this meeting, because it would allow us to save lives and enter into a negotiation process on the issue of territories, security guarantees and the security of the European continent at the same time.
— Exactly, because the pressure can be mutual. The Russians are also putting pressure on the Europeans. They're even testing us. Let me remind you of a couple of dates: three incidents in ten days. Poland, on September 10, a couple dozen drones crossed the border, violated the airspace. Romania, September 14, one UAV. Estonia, on September 19, three fighter jets remained in the Estonian sky for 12 minutes. NATO did not respond. Until when will we leave such situations without reaction?
— Firstly, NATO reacted in a proportionate manner, but each time, on the one hand, it condemned, convened coordination consultations in the form provided for in the fundamental documents of the Alliance, as well as strengthening its defense position. France and the United Kingdom, for example, contributed by sending Rafales — in our case, we were talking about additional units - to patrol Polish airspace.
— But is it enough, Mr. President?
— In the face of provocations…
— You said "proportional", do you think that NATO has given the right response [to "provocations" – approx. trans.]?
— Yes, because it is clear to us that these are tests. The question is, we won't open fire over this. So that…
— The Prime Minister of Poland mentions this possibility.
— He mentions it in case there is another invasion [into the airspace – approx. trans.].
— If I may quote, I will quote the words of Donald Tusk, who stated that his country is ready to shoot down any flying object violating its airspace without warning. Would you support him from that point of view?
— First of all, as Prime Minister Tusk rightly pointed out, all this will happen if new cases of airspace violations are recorded. But in the face of these kind of credibility checks, I believe that our collective reaction was proportional. Then, it is completely justified that the States that have already suffered today — and all other countries — should take an uncompromising position, and this is exactly the view we should all adhere to. So yes, of course, this is the position of the Alliance: if provocations were organized again or air or ground space was violated, it would be important to react.
— Would the Americans support us?
— The Americans are a party to this treaty, which includes an article on collective defense, this famous fifth article.
— But, nevertheless, it is necessary to somehow dose, if I understand you correctly, a proportional reaction. Is there still a risk of escalation, or is there a fear that such a response could lead to escalation?
- What, in my opinion, is the purpose of what Russia has undertaken, is to tell us: "You want to support Ukraine, you provide security guarantees. I am sending a signal by these intrusions that it would be better for you to take care of your own protection." What we have done within the framework of the coalition of the willing is compatible with our defense position and defense system in eastern Europe. This was agreed with NATO. It is important to show that we are able to protect Ukraine at the same time, because it is located at the forefront of our collective security system, and to continue to protect our airspace. Therefore, yes, it is very important to formulate it very clearly and react quickly, which we did. It is important to strengthen our position, as they say, that is, to invest more funds, which we have done, and France has contributed. And if new provocations follow, then step up efforts even more, because this would mean that Russia has decided to raise the level [of confrontation]. I don't think that would be in her best interest.
— Excuse me, Mr. President, to make it clear, what does "raise the degree" mean?
— This means that if someone tries to provoke you again, you should react a little more actively. I'm not going to engage in political fantasies, because the ability to behave plausibly in such matters lies precisely in not being too predictable.
— Yes, of course.
— No, but because otherwise it is necessary to ask this question first of all to Russians who are initiators of aggression.
— But as for you, your current position in case of a new attempt, a new test, the next level — will there be a return fire?
— This will be what we planned. Very clearly. But today we are talking about the security of Europe. So we cannot allow the idea to take hold that Poland, Estonia, Romania will be in a weak position, because the next stage will be about Germany, and then about us. So it's important that we work together to make sure that our statements are believed. And that's what we do. We have invested in this initiative through the appropriate means. Today it is clear that the desired development of events is that Russia finally realizes that it is now in a situation in which it is playing the role of a destabilizing force for the whole of Europe, so that it returns to the negotiating table and reaches agreements on the Ukrainian issue — and that a kind of new pact on the security of the European continent is concluded with it. This is what we must strive for together. From the very beginning, France has been trying to find the way to peace on this issue. When you are dealing with a destabilizing force that chooses military action, you must demonstrate your position, help those who resist, and maintain the credibility of your positions so that you cannot be weakened.
