The hybrid meeting in Paris has made Macron progressed in implementing Ukraine’s security guarantees plan. But there are still several questions. DW Analysis.

The French president may have announced yesterday that 26 countries are committed to deploying troops in Ukraine as a confirmation force, either on the ground, air or sea, once a ceasefire or peace will be there, but a number of questions remain unanswered.

The most important thing is, of course, how all this preparation is combined with the almost pandemic assessment that Putinden wants peace and simply “plays with everyone”, as commented by Ukra Foreign Minister Andriy Simbicha, the Russian president’s proposal for a meeting with Ukrainian counterpart.

Under what flag?

Another issue that should be clarified is the mandate, under which a foreign force could operate in Ukraine, since the “alliance of the willing” is not an institutionally guaranteed instrument, regardless of whether it includes almost all NATO countries. It will certainly not be under the flag of the Alliance, which is a red line for Moscow, nor of the EU since not all members agree on it.

Ursula von der Layen did not specify which of the member states belong to these 26 countries. It is recalled that Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fitso was in Beijing Wednesday, where he had a meeting with Putin, and Hungarian Viktor Orban’s disagreements are well known to the EU policy in the Ukrainian. It is unlikely at least at this stage it is at this stage to put such a force under the UN flag for obvious reasons.

However, Zelenski, speaking about his own country’s request to join the EU apparently had something else in mind when he said that accession to the European Union is an uninterrupted economic, political and geopolitical security guarantee. “EU conditions also contain military aid clause,” he said.

Reluctance to send terrestrial forces

The central unanswered question always remains the same. That is, which countries are so willing to send terrestrial forces to Ukraine. There is a clear statement of intentions only by France itself, Britain, Scandinavian and Baltic countries. The large countries in the size of Italy, Spain, Poland have no such disposition and their participation remains to be clarified. The German government’s statements and the Chancellor Mertz himself on whether or not German soldiers participate in the venture are contradictory. And the reason is not just Putin’s statement that “if troops appear there, especially now, during the battles, we assume that they will be legal targets for destruction.”

Who and for how long will it pay?

An equally focal question concerns how the US participates. The French press was already wondering the next day if the Macron announcements of significant progress in shaping the agenda on security guarantees also include the specification of American participation, which remains unclear in its details. “The alliance of volunteers is still seeking US support,” Le Monde wrote.

The only sure thing is that Europeans will be called upon to lift the main financial burden of the whole business, which is also unknown how long it will last. If one stands in the statements of many European ministers lately that Russia will remain a constant threat to Europe, it means that the presence of foreign forces in Ukrainian territory will require funding in … perpetuity. Are all countries ready to make such a commitment? The statement von der Layen has also been costly. “Do we have to turn Ukraine into a steel hedgehog, unmistakable for current and future attackers?”

‘Poti Puri’ states without a common direction

All of this justifies the characterization of “creative ambiguity” as a convenient, communicative tool of the pressured intravenous macron. Perhaps the fact that ultimately the original idea for a meeting of the leaders in Paris was not with a physical presence, as it was announced, but the hybrids with telecommunications is the best indication of how big the progress that emerged from this initiative was ultimately. The assessment of German political scientist Thomas Jagger, who spoke of “a pot of pure states without a clear orientation”, claims a prize.

Finally, it is legitimate the question of whether they help the goal “bring Putin to the table of the dialogue” characterizations of the Russian president as that of Macron on a “predator” or Merz on “more serious war criminal”. There is no evidence of a meeting in the visible future Putin-Chalenski at the moment. There are many suggested locations, what is missing is the mood.