It is highly unlikely that the Parisian summit on Ukraine, summoned by Emmanuel Macron, will prove to be a harbinger of significant turns. It is clear that the initiative of the French President was a way to ensure that Paris could recover weight in the Ukrainian diplomatic process, especially after the Trump administration had announced that he did not want to include the EU in peace negotiations. Macron therefore aimed to relaunch his role as a mediator, placing himself, at the same time, as a reference point for the entire European Union. With this in mind, the French leader tried to increase his prestige, also inviting the British premier, Keir Starmer. In short, Macron nourished ambitious goals. However, objectives that risk resolving themselves in a hole in the water.
First of all, the selective invitations of the French president irritated those European countries that were not involved in the summit. The Slovenian president, Natasa Pirc Musar, for example criticized the French initiative, claiming that he launched a “wrong message”. In short, instead of promoting the unit of the European front, Macron, with its summit, risks having further weakened it. Secondly, the Head of the Elysée has failed to try to carve out the role of privileged interlocutor of the White House. The French president had, yes, a telephone interview with Donald Trump before the summit. However, the Downing Street tenant, who was present at the Parisian conference, made it known that he will have a meeting with the American president next week. Without then counting that the French leader is very far from the deep political harmony that is currently recorded between Trump and Giorgia Meloni. A third problem due to the effectiveness of the Parisian summit arose on the issue of sending European troops in Ukraine. If Sweden has shown itself possible, Germany has completely pulled the handbrake. That the European front shows himself divided on such a crucial issue, speaks volumes about the successful chances of the Paris summit.
A further problem for Macron lies in French weakness. And we only refer to the fact that, for many months now, the tenant of the Elysée appeared politically shaky at home. The theme is more complex. Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine began, Macron has tried to impose himself on the international scene, doing everything and the opposite of everything. In 2022 and 2023, he attacked himself as a mediator, exhorting to keep a not too severe line against Moscow. Then, since last year, he rediscovered anti -rough habit. In both cases, the French leader did not really show himself incisive as regards the Ukrainian crisis. To this add the structural problems that France has in terms of hard and soft power. Over the past three years, Paris has significantly lost influence on the Sahel region, having to withdraw its troops from various countries in the area. A set of circumstances that obviously weakens the international image of the Head of the Elysée. And which also questions its actual force on a diplomatic level.
