France Betrays U.S. Peace Efforts And Pledges Billions More for Ukraine

France is sending billions to Ukraine in what may be another costly foreign entanglement for American allies, with some countries considering sending troops to a war zone where our own leaders have refused to put boots on the ground.

At a glance:

• French President Emmanuel Macron announced a $2.15 billion military aid package for Ukraine

• Macron and UK leaders are discussing potentially deploying troops to Ukraine despite some European resistance

• The aid comes as Russia continues aggressive military actions despite ceasefire discussions

• Croatian President firmly rejected sending any soldiers to Ukraine, calling the mission impossible

• European leaders admit they need U.S. support but are moving forward with their own coalition

France’s Multi-Billion Dollar Ukraine Pledge

French President Emmanuel Macron announced a massive €2 billion ($2.15 billion) military aid package for Ukraine ahead of a security summit in Paris. This new financial commitment comes as European powers attempt to increase support for Ukraine without American leadership at the forefront.

Macron made the announcement as he hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and nearly 30 other nations for discussions on continued support for the war-torn country. The French President accused Russia of showing a “desire for war” while claiming Moscow has failed to respond to Ukraine’s ceasefire offer.

While pledging the funds, Macron boldly declared that “Russia shall have no right of say regarding the support we are providing and will provide Ukraine, nor shall they set the conditions.”

European Troops in Ukraine Proposal Divides Allies

In a significant escalation of Western involvement, France and Britain are discussing plans to deploy troops to Ukraine as part of a post-war security arrangement. This controversial proposal would place European soldiers in Ukraine to monitor and enforce any future peace deal with Russia. And the move could easily spark WWIII by dragging NATO into the conflict.

“This will require the engagement and support of the United States,” UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer admitted, highlighting questions about whether European nations can effectively operate without American backing. Military experts suggest a credible peacekeeping force could require between 10,000 to 30,000 troops, a substantial commitment for European armies already stretched thin.

Several European nations have already rejected participation in such a mission, with Croatia taking the firmest stance. Croatian President Zoran Milanovic bluntly stated: “A Croatian soldier will not go to Ukraine under any arrangement, that is completely out of the question.”

Russia Accused of Stalling While Attacks Continue

European leaders at the Paris summit accused Russia of deliberately stalling peace negotiations while continuing aggressive actions in Ukraine. UK Prime Minister Starmer claimed Russian officials are “playing games and they’re playing for time” rather than seriously engaging in peace talks.

Despite a truce ordered by Russian President Vladimir Putin, Ukraine reported that Russia launched 117 drones in attacks on Ukrainian territory. The continued military aggression comes as Ukrainian President Zelenskyy cautioned against reducing pressure on Russia, stating: “Now is definitely not the time to reduce pressure on Russia or weaken our unity for the sake of peace.”

The summit participants agreed to maintain and potentially increase sanctions on Russia, rejecting Moscow’s demands that sanctions be lifted for ceasefire arrangements. Zelenskyy emphasized that “lifting sanctions on Russia right now would be a disaster for diplomacy,” pointing to the need for continued economic pressure as leverage in negotiations.

Summit discussions also addressed the potential role of European forces in ensuring Russia does not attack Ukraine again, with Macron clarifying that European troops would not be deployed in combat roles. The French President specified their mission would be limited to monitoring and controlling the situation, though critics question whether such limited involvement could prevent future escalation.