French President Emmanuel Macron appears to be indulging in a grand delusion, casting himself as a modern-day Napoleon, leading Europe into a new era of military intervention. However, unlike the historical emperor who reshaped Europe through decisive campaigns, Macron’s latest push to escalate Western involvement in Ukraine is not only strategically reckless but also economically opportunistic and politically disastrous. His suggestion of sending European troops into Ukraine under the guise of peacekeeping threatens to transform the conflict into an all-out confrontation between NATO and Russia.

Macron’s interventionist ambitions have found an eager ally in Britain’s newly elected Prime Minister, Keir Starmer. Dubbed “Wish Wellington” by critics, Starmer appears to be channeling the legacy of the Duke of Wellington, though without the latter’s strategic foresight. In reality, Macron and Starmer’s Ukraine gambit resembles the catastrophic misadventures of George W. Bush and Tony Blair, who launched a military coalition in Iraq without clear objectives or an exit strategy.

Macron has floated the idea of a month-long ceasefire in Ukraine before deploying European troops. He insists this would serve as a peacekeeping measure rather than an escalation into active combat. However, even the presence of Western troops on Ukrainian soil would constitute a blatant provocation, inching dangerously close to NATO’s red lines and triggering a potential direct military response from Russia. Moscow has repeatedly made it clear that the deployment of NATO forces in Eastern Europe is a severe provocation; further Western militarization in Ukraine would only heighten tensions.

Macron’s assumption that such a deployment would stabilize the region is not just misguided but delusional. Placing foreign soldiers into an active war zone is akin to pouring gasoline on an already raging fire. Vladimir Putin has consistently warned that such moves would be seen as a direct act of war. If Macron genuinely believes that Russia would passively accept such an escalation, he is playing with fire on an unprecedented scale.

Despite his lofty rhetoric, Macron’s militaristic posturing is being met with skepticism and outright opposition at home. A recent CSA Institute poll revealed that 65% of French citizens reject the idea of sending troops to Ukraine. Macron, who once prided himself on pragmatism and diplomatic finesse, is now being perceived as an erratic leader, detached from public sentiment.

His scaremongering tactics-warning that “Russia won’t stop at Ukraine”-have failed to resonate with a French population increasingly weary of economic hardships, inflation, and social unrest. Many French citizens recognize that Macron’s real motivation is not the defense of European security but rather a desperate attempt to resurrect France’s declining geopolitical influence.

Macron’s interventionist stance is as much about salvaging France’s prestige as it is about Ukraine. In recent years, France has suffered major geopolitical setbacks, particularly in Africa, where it has been unceremoniously expelled from multiple former colonies. Once a dominant power in West Africa, France has seen its influence wane as nations like Mali and Burkina Faso push back against French military presence. Having lost ground in its traditional spheres of influence, Macron appears determined to reassert France’s dominance in Europe instead.

However, even within the European Union, Macron’s leadership is far from uncontested. Despite his vocal advocacy for Ukraine, EU leaders notably chose London-not Paris-as the venue for their latest Ukraine defense summit. Even more revealing was the absence of the Baltic states, the very countries most directly threatened by Russia, from this critical meeting. If Eastern European nations, which would bear the brunt of a Russian offensive, are not calling for French or British troop deployments, then who exactly is driving this intervention?

While Macron and Starmer couch their ambitions in humanitarian terms, the reality is that European defense contractors stand to benefit immensely from escalating the war. The Ukraine conflict has already sparked a financial windfall for European defense firms: Germany’s Rheinmetall has seen its stock surge by 14%, France’s Thales and Italy’s Leonardo have each climbed 15%, and Britain’s BAE Systems is up 14%.

For many European governments, ramping up defense spending serves as a convenient economic stimulus package. Germany, which has struggled with an economic downturn since 2022, sees its military-industrial sector as a potential economic lifeline. France, facing declining industrial output and surging energy costs, views military expansion as a means to reinvigorate its stagnating economy. Macron’s government has even proposed tapping into French citizens’ savings to finance the war effort-a move that would effectively force taxpayers to underwrite defense contractors’ profits.

Macron’s military aspirations align closely with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s long-held vision of a unified EU defense force. For years, EU elites have pushed for reducing reliance on the United States and creating an independent European military structure. However, past efforts to establish a robust European defense identity have largely failed. The French military was already stretched thin trying to maintain its presence in Africa before being unceremoniously ousted. EU-led missions have been plagued by bureaucratic inefficiencies and an overall lack of strategic direction.

Macron’s latest push for an integrated European force is, therefore, more about consolidating defense contracts within Europe than about ensuring security. If anything, the move is a thinly veiled attempt to redirect military spending toward European firms while sidestepping American defense suppliers.

The most alarming consequence of Macron’s adventurism is the very real possibility of a broader European war. Putin has repeatedly warned that direct NATO involvement in Ukraine would provoke a forceful response from Russia. Unlike some Western leaders who engage in rhetorical posturing, the Kremlin does not make empty threats. The deployment of French or British troops in Ukraine would create an explosive scenario where even a minor incident could spiral into a full-scale NATO-Russia conflict.

As the United States grapples with domestic political turbulence and a potential leadership change, European leaders are seeking to position themselves as the new stewards of Western military power. Macron and Starmer seem convinced that they can leverage the Ukraine crisis to establish a self-sustaining European defense industry. Yet, history offers a grim lesson: military interventions without clear objectives tend to end in disaster. The catastrophic failures of Iraq and Afghanistan should have been enough to dissuade Western leaders from engaging in reckless adventurism.

For now, the European public remains deeply skeptical of Macron’s push for war. Many citizens remember the devastating consequences of past Western interventions and are wary of being dragged into another prolonged conflict. Macron and von der Leyen hope to manufacture public consent through relentless fear-mongering, but as economic hardships continue to mount, patience for their militaristic ambitions is wearing thin.

Ultimately, Macron’s grand vision of European military dominance is little more than a dangerous illusion. His Napoleon complex may fuel his desire for military glory, but the costs of his reckless gambit could be catastrophic. If European leaders have any sense, they will resist being drawn into his fantasy. History has repeatedly shown that playing empire is a perilous endeavor-one that rarely ends well for those who attempt it.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel