French Foreign Minister Informs BBC of No ‘Red Lines’ in Ukraine Support

The French Foreign Minister informed the BBC that France has no “red lines” regarding its support for Ukraine. Jean-Noël Barrot stated that Ukraine is authorized to use French long-range missiles against Russia “in the logics of self defence,” but he did not confirm whether French weaponry had already been deployed in this manner. In an exclusive interview for Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, he remarked, “The principle has been set… our messages to President Zelensky have been well received.” French President Macron had previously signaled France’s readiness to permit its missiles to be launched into Russia earlier this year. However, Barrot’s statements carry weight, as they were made just days after US and UK long-range missiles were employed in this manner for the first time. Barrot, following discussions with Foreign Secretary David Lammy in London on Friday, asserted that Western allies ought not to impose any restrictions on their support for Ukraine against Russia, and should “not set and express red lines.” When questioned about the potential deployment of French troops in combat, he responded, “We do not discard any option.” He stated, “We will support Ukraine as intensely and as long as necessary. Why? Because it is our security that is at stake. Each time the Russian army progresses by one square kilometre, the threat gets one square kilometre closer to Europe.” Barrot alluded to the possibility of inviting Ukraine to join Nato, a move President Zelensky has sought. Barrot commented, “We are open to extending an invitation, and so in our discussions with friends and allies, and friends and allies of Ukraine, we are working to get them to closer to our positions.” He further indicated that Western nations would need to increase their defense expenditures, noting, “Of course we will have to spend more if we want to do more, and I think that we have to face these new challenges.” Barrot’s remarks follow a week characterized by substantial escalation in Ukraine, including the inaugural use of UK and US long-range missiles fired into Russia, Russia’s reported launch of a new missile type, and Vladimir Putin’s suggestion of a potential global war. A UK government source characterized this period as a “crunch point,” anticipating both the winter season and Donald Trump’s potential return to the White House. The question arises regarding how Ukraine’s allies should address Putin’s threats and Ukraine’s increasingly precarious situation. The author has consulted sources both within and outside the UK government to ascertain potential next steps. A primary recommendation is to ensure the continuous flow of financial and military assistance. One source commented, “I’d turn up with a trebling of European money for Ukraine and I’d go after Russian assets.” The source added, “We need to work out what is the war chest that Ukraine needs to find to fight through 2025 and into 2026 – it’s hard to ask the US taxpayer to foot the bill.” It is widely felt within the defense sector that augmenting defense budgets constitutes a partial solution. Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, the head of the military, who visited President Zelensky this week, had indicated a fortnight prior that spending levels required an increase. Nevertheless, given financial constraints and the government’s reluctance to even establish a timeline for achieving its target of spending 2.5% of GDP on defense, the likelihood of sudden infusions of additional billions is low. Government sources underscored the long-term commitments already undertaken by the UK, particularly its support for Ukraine with drones. Intelligence available this weekend indicates that Ukraine employed drones in mid and late September to strike four Russian ammunition depots located hundreds of miles from Ukraine. These attacks are believed to have successfully destroyed the largest quantity of Russian and North Korean supplied ammunition throughout the conflict to date. The origin of these drones, whether provided by the UK or other entities, remains unconfirmed. Furthermore, they drew attention to a treaty signed between the UK and Ukraine in July, designed to assist the country in arming itself for the long term. Concerning the response to Putin’s increasingly threatening rhetoric, the consensus from multiple sources is: “don’t panic.” One source commented, “The whole way through he has made threats – we have to not let it deter us.” According to a former minister, the current distinction is that Putin’s remarks are intended to capture the attention of the president-elect. “Russia wants to help Trump with reasons to switch off the help,” the minister noted, suggesting that if the conflict appears intolerably dangerous, the incoming President might be more inclined to seek its conclusion. Regarding the next President, a period of apprehension exists while Trump’s intentions remain ambiguous. Several sources expressed hope that Ukraine could be placed in the most advantageous position for any potential negotiation. An insider advising the government indicated that this might involve emphasizing Trump’s own negotiation capabilities. The goal is “To get [Trump] into frame of mind where it is one that is good for Ukraine – so he looks like the guy who stopped the war not the guy that lost Ukraine.” Privately, there are also proposals for Ukraine to contemplate what could constitute an acceptable resolution to the conflict. Publicly, however, ministers consistently assert that Russia should not be rewarded for an illegal invasion and that the decision to negotiate, including the timing and any potential compromises, rests solely with Ukraine. Nevertheless, a source acknowledged an understanding within the government that “every negotiation has to involve trade offs.” A former minister posed the question, “We have to think about what could be the quid pro quo for Ukraine.” The minister continued, “If [Zelensky] were to concede, what does he get? Does he get NATO membership to guarantee security in the long term?” There is also an acknowledgment that the threat posed by Russia is enduring, manifesting either in Ukraine or through attempted sabotage domestically. A government source stated, “They are literally allied with the North Koreans fighting now, and the Iranians are supplying them,” adding, “We can’t see them as anything other than a threat now.” The underlying reality may be a more permanent threat situated on Europe’s eastern borders. Russia’s aggression and its perilous alliances could signify a return to a historical norm, following a brief period of positive relations during the 1990s. One source remarked, “Get used to it,” asserting, “it’s how we’ve lived for ever.” Copyright 2024 BBC. All rights reserved. The BBC bears no responsibility for the content of external websites. Information regarding our external linking policy is available.