Back to Kinzler’s Global News Blog
Politico, January 16
Bardella and Farage cast doubt on French and British pledges to Ukraine
Populist champions in Paris and London are opposed to major troop deployments. They might be in power soon.
Full text:
PARIS — Europe’s security pledges to Ukraine face a potential expiration date.
French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer are pressing ahead with plans to guarantee Ukraine’s postwar security — including the possible deployment of French and British troops as peacekeepers. But with right-wing populist leaders rising fast in both countries, those commitments could soon come under strain.
Jordan Bardella of the National Rally is the front-runner to win France’s presidency next year, while Nigel Farage’s Reform UK now leads the polls in Britain by a wide margin ahead of an election due by 2029. Both men have cast doubt on large-scale troop deployments to Ukraine, raising fresh questions about whether Paris and London can stand by promises made today.
That uncertainty matters. As Western Europe’s only two nuclear powers, France and Britain are central to efforts to deter Russia from attacking Ukraine again — especially as U.S. President Donald Trump insists Europe must bear more of the burden once a ceasefire is reached. For Kyiv, the worry is not theoretical. Long-term security guarantees depend on political continuity in Paris and London — and that continuity looks far from certain.
Asked by POLITICO this week whether he would honor French commitments to Ukraine’s security made by Macron if he were elected president, Bardella was evasive.
“We expressed our reservations about French soldiers being deployed to the frontline,” the National Rally president said. “The coalition of the willing that met in Paris put a number of conditions on paper, we support some of them, for instance drone surveillance of a buffer zone between Ukraine and Russia.”
Farage last week also said he was only open to Britain being part of a temporary peacekeeping mission to Ukraine “on rotation.” He added British forces were in “no position” to be part of a major security commitment like the U.K. army’s deployment on the Rhine during the Cold War.
That’s not what Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy wants to hear.
“Of course we are concerned,” said a Paris-based diplomat, who declined to speak on the record about a sensitive matter. “My job as diplomat … is to prepare well enough, to explain to whoever sits in the Élysée that this is actually what France needs” for its own security.
Zelenskyy and his allies, particularly from countries that share a border with Russia, have long warned that Ukraine’s security is closely tied to Europe’s, and that President Vladimir Putin will ramp up his attacks on the continent if the West fails to show its strength in Ukraine.
Both Bardella and his mentor Marine Le Pen — who is the party’s official presidential candidate but is currently under a five-year election ban pending her appeal trial — have been at pains to detach from their party’s past ties with Moscow and pledged support to Ukraine. But they also heavily criticized Macron’s proposals to put boots on the ground, accusing him of warmongering. The French president “has belligerent tendencies that worry many of our compatriots,” Bardella said on the BFM TV channel in December.
A top French military officer, speaking on condition of anonymity to talk candidly, acknowledged that a National Rally win in 2027 would be “a problem” for the allied camp, but added it would be difficult for the far right to bring home troops if they are already deployed in Ukraine.
The officer added that France’s military top brass would likely “tell Marine Le Pen that the consequences will be disastrous.”
Voters support Ukraine … in theory
“Giving security guarantees when the next elections could change everything is a problem,” said Jacob Ross, a Paris-based research fellow at the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP) when asked about both France and the U.K.
In France, he added, the lack of political consensus on deploying French troops in postwar Ukraine goes beyond the far right’s opposition: Any troop deployment would need parliament approval after four months and it is unlikely there would be a majority to approve it “even today.”
Surveys consistently show broad backing for Ukraine in general across the political spectrum, but National Rally voters are reluctant when it comes to ramping up support to Kyiv.
In an exclusive POLITICO poll conducted in November, 52 percent of National Rally voters said France had given more than enough support to Ukraine, compared with 35 percent in the general population.
The Farage factor
Things aren’t looking much better across the English Channel for Ukraine supporters because populist champion Farage, who recently shook hands with Bardella in London, has also raised objections to troop deployment.
Reform UK’s leader said last week he would vote against the government’s plan to put boots on the ground in Ukraine as it stands.
Farage said at a press conference that while he was “not a pacifist,” he could not support the plan without a clearer exit strategy, higher defense spending and more European allies contributing troops.
However, the right-wing populist leader has not ruled out making any contribution. Asked by POLITICO if there were circumstances in which he’d support sending troops to Ukraine, the Reform leader replied: “Would I be prepared to be part of an international peacekeeping force? Yes.”
“But our own engagement with it would be time-restricted and on rotation — then you might think seriously about saying yes. In these circumstances, no, I don’t believe this has been properly thought through,” he added.
Reform UK currently has only six MPs in parliament but has been leading Starmer’s Labour in the polls by a wide margin for months.
A general election in the U.K. is not due until 2029 — but it is in the prime minister’s power to call one sooner. Starmer’s low personal ratings have fueled talk of a leadership challenge, which may lead to calls for another national poll.
Peter Ricketts, former U.K. national security adviser and U.K. ambassador to France, acknowledged there was “uncertainty about continuity of policy, particularly in France given the election in 2027.”
He added: “Ukraine can only work with the leaders in power now. Where the U.K. might be after the next election feels light years away given what Ukraine is coping with night by night.”
A U.K. defense official, not authorized to speak publicly, expressed concern that Farage’s posture undermines Britain’s promises to Ukraine, warning that — if pursued in government — his approach “could spell disaster for national and European security.”
Politico, January 16
Germany’s far right loosens its embrace of Trump
As public opinion in the country increasingly turns against the U.S. president over his threats to seize Greenland, the AfD is seeing the downside of its strong alignment with him.
Full text:
BERLIN — Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has long sought close ties to the Trump administration in its quest for powerful international allies and an end to its political isolation at home.
But as public sentiment in Germany increasingly turns against U.S. President Donald Trump and his foreign interventionism — in particular his talk of taking control of Greenland and his seizure of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro — AfD leaders are recalibrating, putting distance between their party and a U.S. president they previously embraced.
“He has violated a fundamental election promise, namely not to interfere in other countries, and he has to explain that to his own voters,” Alice Weidel, one of the AfD’s national leaders, said earlier this week.
Standing alongside Weidel, Tino Chrupalla, the AfD’s other national leader, partly defended Trump for pursuing what he perceives to be American interests within the country’s “sphere of influence.” At the same time, he also condemned the approach Trump was taking.
“Wild West methods are to be rejected here, and the end does not always justify the means.”
By distancing themselves from Trump, the AfD leaders are following the path of Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally in France, whose leaders, due to the American president’s deep unpopularity there, have been far more critical of Trump and view his administration’s overtures to European nationalists as a liability. In response to Trump’s stances on Greenland and Venezuela, for instance, National Rally President Jordan Bardella recently accused the American leader of harboring “imperial ambitions.”
The AfD’s criticism this week, by contrast, was tepid; but even mild disapproval has been rare from the party’s leaders. From the moment Trump began his second term, the German far right has seen American ideological backing — including from billionaire tech mogul Elon Musk and U.S. Vice President JD Vance — as key to boosting the party’s domestic legitimacy and breaking the “firewall” that mainstream parties have historically imposed to keep the AfD from power.
But the political risks inherent in the AfD’s efforts to ally with Trump are also becoming clearer. Surveys show the vast majority of Germans strongly oppose what Trump has said about Greenland and what he has done in Venezuela. Only 12 percent of Germans view his performance positively, according to Germany’s benchmark ARD-DeutschlandTrend poll released last week, while only 15 percent see the U.S. as a trustworthy partner, a new low.
Trump’s unpopularity is forcing AfD leaders to attempt an awkward balancing act: Criticize the president, while not undermining the considerable efforts the party has made to forge links with Trump and his Republican party.
AfD leaders have leaned heavily on the Trump administration to help end their political ostracization at home. The strategy appears to have worked: When Germany’s domestic intelligence agency declared the AfD extremist last year, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the label “tyranny in disguise.” At last year’s Munich Security Conference, meanwhile, U.S. Vice President JD Vance urged mainstream politicians in Europe to dismantle the “firewalls” that have for decades shut out far-right parties.
AfD politicians were delighted on both occasions, which explains why their criticism of Trump this week was leavened by praise. In fact, Weidel and Chrupalla portrayed Trump’s pursuit of what he believes to be in the U.S. national interest as something of a model.
Germany’s government, Weidel suggested, could learn a lesson about how to put national self interest above other considerations.
Trump’s recent actions were based on “geostrategic reasons,” Weidel declared. “I would like to see the German federal government finally making policies for the German people, in the interest of Germany.”
https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-donald-trump-afd-greenland-nicolas-maduro-national-rally/
L’Express, January 7
Venezuela : pourquoi “dictateur” est un mot interdit chez LFI
Politique. Les insoumis refusent de qualifier Nicolas Maduro de “dictateur” ? Misère du campisme.
Full text:
Nicolas Maduro est-il un “dictateur”? Mardi 6 janvier sur BFMTV, Mathilde Panot a refusé de répondre à cette question. Enlevé par les forces spéciales américaines à Caracas, le président vénézuélien demeure incarcéré dans une prison de Brooklyn, accusé de trafic de drogue par l’administration de Donald Trump, un chef d’inculpation battu en brèche par le souci premier du président américain de contrôler la manne pétrolière de la République Bolivarienne. La question était donc déplacée? Sans doute selon la présidente du groupe parlementaire LFI, pour qui la qualification du régime serait “un engrenage” – presqu’un contre-feu! – destiné à justifier les violations du droit international.
L’un n’empêche pas l’autre. Comme si la conscience humaine était trop limitée pour conjuguer la dénonciation d’un régime autocratique et la capture de son leader, en dehors de toute règle internationale. Lui avait pourtant convoqué l’intelligence des Français : Jacques Chirac s’était opposé avec force à l’invasion alliée de l’Irak en 2003 avant de se “réjouir” de la chute de Saddam Hussein et du régime baasiste. Les insoumis érigent en modèle la diplomatie française de l’époque. Ils n’en gardent un souvenir que parcellaire. Pourquoi cette hémiplégie?
Une manière bien commode pour les lieutenants de LFI de ne pas récuser un allié objectivement détestable. Un insoumis ne renie jamais ses combats, c’est tout le drame. Jean-Luc Mélenchon a beau avoir pris ses distances avec la présidence Maduro, c’est dans la révolution dite “bolivarienne” de son prédécesseur Hugo Chavez que le patriarche insoumis a puisé son récit politique. Jamais il n’accablera l’héritier, duquel il s’est pourtant tenu à distance, y compris lorsqu’Amnesty International – habituellement cité à l’envi par les insoumis – dénoncera un régime “responsable de graves violations des droits humains et de crimes contre l’humanité” au lendemain d’élections aux régularités contestées. La France insoumise ne pipera mot, et les plus zélés de ses membres s’échineront à défendre Maduro. Misère du campisme, produit d’un soutien systématique aux acteurs du bloc anti-américain, si méprisables soient-ils. Misère d’un mouvement aveuglé par ses certitudes, observant en Emmanuel Macron, à l’été 2024, un “autocrate”, mais qui, en 2018, dira éprouver “des sympathies politiques” à l’égard de Nicolas Maduro.
La France insoumise, ou l’art de ne pas nommer les choses. Les mélenchonistes et l’art de mal les nommer, surtout. Il y a deux ans, Danièle Obono qualifia le Hamas de “mouvement de résistance”, quand les insoumis, à une nuance près, parleront d’abord du 7 octobre comme d’une “offensive armée de forces palestiniennes”. Aujourd’hui, Sophia Chikirou rechigne à qualifier le régime chinois, dirigé par l’hégémonique PCC – celui qui entre autres traque et enferme les Ouighours – de “dictature”. Entre temps, Jean-Luc Mélenchon a soutenu que Volodymir Zelensky, le chef d’un État martyr, n’était “président de rien” car son mandat était “arrivé à terme”, alors même que la loi martiale ukrainienne en vigueur depuis l’invasion russe interdit d’organiser des élections présidentielles. Deux poids, deux mesures : la “révolution citoyenne”, promise de longue date par LFI, fait froid dans le dos.