Macron’s ‘deal’ with Putin will only further reassure our enemies that we pose no challenge to them.

Con Coughlin

DEFENCE EDITOR

Con Coughlin is the Telegraph’s defence editor and chief foreign affairs columnist.

10 February 2022

Emmanuel Macron may believe that he has achieved the Gallic equivalent of “peace in our time” through his diplomatic interventions in the Ukraine crisis. Yet the brutal truth is that any attempt to appease the Kremlin will simply be taken as further evidence of the West’s waning influence in world affairs.

Russia’s primary objective in amassing a massive military force on the Ukrainian border has been, I still contend, to test Western resolve, not to seize control of Ukraine, a move that would be ruinously counter-productive to Moscow’s interests.

China, too, is taking a close interest in how Moscow’s latest stand-off with its Western adversaries unfolds. Suggestions that the crisis might result in the formation of a new Sino-Russian axis are far-fetched, given the deep-seated rivalry that exists between the two countries. Chinese President Xi Jinping expressed solidarity with his Russian opposite number in the joint communique issued at the Winter Olympics. Yet Beijing views Moscow as little more than a convenient gas station to be used to fuel China’s far more convincing masterplan to achieve global domination.

The Chinese are, though, taking a close interest in how the Ukraine crisis unfolds because its outcome could have a direct bearing on their own global aspirations, especially concerning issues such as Taiwan.Consequently, the deal Mr Macron appears to think he can strike with Vladimir Putin will be viewed in both Moscow and Beijing as a major test of the West’s resolve, one the French leader seems to have failed miserably.

Even though Mr Macron asserted he received an assurance from Mr Putin that there would be “no deterioration or escalation” in the Ukraine crisis – a claim the Kremlin promptly dismissed as “not right” – the French leader seems to have done so at the expense of upholding the West’s longstanding commitment to protect Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

Under the terms of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, Western powers, including Britain and the US, committed themselves to safeguarding Ukraine’s sovereignty in return for Kyiv giving up its arsenal of nuclear weapons.

Mr Macron now appears willing to abandon this undertaking by opting instead to pressure the Ukrainian government into accepting the conditions set out in the Minsk-2 agreement that France and Germany helped to negotiate in 2015 to end the country’s civil war.

The Minsk agreement is deeply unpopular in Ukraine, as it effectively attempts to plant a Russian Trojan horse in the heart of the Ukrainian constitution. For, if implemented, it would integrate the Russian-controlled breakaway provinces of eastern Ukraine into Kyiv’s political establishment, thereby providing Moscow with a direct say over how the country conducts its affairs.

What is being called the Finlandisation of Ukraine, by which the country’s independence is recognised in name only, would be a poor substitute for Kyiv’s long-held ambition of forging closer ties with the West and one day gaining membership of institutions such as Nato and the EU.

Obliging Kyiv to accept the Minsk deal, which seems to be Mr Macron’s key objective, would provide yet another example of the West’s waning credibility so far as upholding its international obligations is concerned.

The Western alliance has found itself caught between a rock and a hard place on the Ukraine issue. While accepting there are international obligations to protect the country, few Nato members, for example, have any interest in admitting Ukraine to the alliance – or any other multinational institution. Gripped by widespread corruption and political instability, Ukraine would be more of a liability than an asset if it was ever granted membership, rather like Turkey.

Nevertheless, any perceived failure by the West to protect Ukraine from Mr Putin’s revanchist objectives – especially following last year’s Afghanistan fiasco – will only strengthen the view that Western democracies are no match for the challenge posed by autocratic regimes such as Russia and China.

The old Cold War doctrine, whereby the West never conceded an inch in its battle to defend freedom, is long gone. It has been replaced by a willingness by too many Western powers to appease their adversaries – Germany’s support for Russia’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline being a classic case of placing self-interest above principle.

Coming after the West’s capitulation to Moscow over recent acts of Russian aggression in Georgia and Crimea, the abandonment of Ukraine would only lend further encouragement to autocratic regimes to continue to subvert the established Western order by expanding their sphere of influence.

Russia’s growing assertiveness can be seen in its increased activity in the Middle East and Africa, while China’s confidence in confronting the West is evident in its recent backing for Argentina’s sovereignty claim over the Falkland Islands.

Defusing the immediate Ukraine crisis is certainly a worthy cause. But it is one that risks further eroding the West’s standing in world affairs.