France's Macron did a good job, and the sentence "not ruling out troops" around NATO directly put the United States in the army, and at the same time forced the United States to clarify that the United States has no such plans.
In fact, whether or not to send troops to Ukraine has been discussed within NATO since the outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Among them, most of the countries have a very clear attitude and will definitely not send troops. Of course, considering that Ukraine may not be able to stop Russia, some countries in Eastern Europe still hope that NATO will intervene too much, but they are secretive about sending troops. The reason for this is that in addition to the fear of further irritation to Russia, the more important reason is that the United States does not agree to send troops.
Although the United States believes that it should not send troops, judging from Russia's previous statements, NATO actually has military personnel who participate in the conflict by disguising themselves as advisers and mercenaries. That is, NATO's military power has long been extended to Ukraine, but it has not been done publicly. The advantage of this is that it will help Ukraine and avoid a head-on conflict with Russia. However, Macron does not seem to like this way, and at a meeting held a few days ago on the topic of aid to Ukraine, he chose to pierce the window paper.
Macron said that although NATO countries have not yet reached an open consensus on "sending troops to Ukraine", he does not rule out any possibility in light of what is happening on the battlefield in Ukraine. The implication is that there is a probability that NATO will send troops. The reason why he said this is based on the previous performance of NATO. Macron pointed out that NATO had said that it would not provide Ukraine with tanks, missiles, etc., but in the end it was done. Obviously, in Macron's view, NATO's so-called commitments are not reliable at all, and naturally the possibility of sending troops cannot be ruled out. As soon as this remark came out, it immediately aroused the dissatisfaction of many NATO member states.
A number of NATO countries, including Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States, said that Macron's words were only his personal thoughts and could not represent other NATO members, and they had no intention of sending troops. In addition, the White House also quoted Biden as clarifying that the US military would not rush to fight in Ukraine. Then, White House spokesman John Kirby said that whether or not to send troops was France's "sovereign decision." The meaning of the words is very clear, anyway, the United States will not act, whether you France wants to send troops or not is your own business, and I the United States has no control.
That being said, if France really wants to take action, the United States will most likely be the first to stand up and oppose it. After all, France is a member of NATO, and according to the relevant regulations of the organization, if France fights with other countries, NATO member states naturally cannot sit idly by. Of course, it is absolutely impossible for France to do this, and some analysts believe that Macron's statement around NATO at the meeting that "sending troops is not ruled out" may be based on the following reasons.
As we all know, in the matter of aiding Ukraine to resist Russia, France's enthusiasm is actually average, and it can't even give it if it wants to give it, let alone send troops for such a big thing. Therefore, Macron's speech at the meeting may be to enhance the attention of the meeting, and to force the United States to pass the Ukraine aid bill as soon as possible. Whatever his purpose, he invisibly forced the United States and its allies to veto the possibility of sending troops. In the future, if the United States wants to talk about this matter, France will say it then.
In fact, as to whether or not to send troops, whether France or some Eastern European countries, they are just paying lip service, and if they really want to send troops, they may run faster than anyone else. On the one hand, NATO member countries are generally not deeply entangled with Ukraine's interests, and aiding Ukraine with ** missiles, materials and funds is the biggest concession that can be made, and they can't afford to bet themselves on Ukraine too. On the other hand, sending troops to Ukraine is too risky and will inevitably be accompanied by a large loss of people and property.
Recently, Russia announced the situation of the Ukrainian army in the past two years, and the figure given by Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu is that the Ukrainian army has lost more than 440,000 personnel. At the same time, Zelensky said that Russia's claims were false, and he claimed that the death toll of the Ukrainian army was only 310 thousand. As far as Russia and Ukraine are concerned, many people prefer the figures given by Shoigu. After all, Ukraine has even begun to include women in the Ukrainian army sequence, and it is impossible to die 310,000 people, the loss of more than 44 is obviously reasonable.
Through this figure, it is enough to show how cruel the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is, and if other countries get involved, they are likely to encounter the same fate as Ukraine. Therefore, it is impossible to send troops, but it is not impossible to use troops to achieve other purposes, and Macron may have a similar idea.