In a landmark speech, French President Emmanuel Macron recently announced a major shift in his country’s deterrence doctrine. As U.S. security commitments appear to weaken, France seeks to step up its responsibility in defending Europe against threats from Russia and other adversaries. This assertive approach comes after unsuccessful attempts to restart negotiations with Moscow. Nicolas Tenzer, senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), contends that a concerted European defence strategy is preferable to new negotiations with Russia.
Emmanuel Macron during his visit to a French navy base in Brittany on March 2, 2026. Photo: Yoan Valat / ANP / AFP
French President Emmanuel Macron wants to play a leading role in Europe’s dealings with Russia. In early January, he suggested that it might be ‘useful’ to reopen discussions with Vladimir Putin, in a transparent framework. This idea was politely rejected by several European leaders, including German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, though it received support from Italian Prime Minister Georgia Meloni, among others. I immediately expressed strong reservations about this idea. In fact, as early as February 2016, I explained why any negotiations with Russia as it stands today should be rejected.
To assess the extent to which such a discussion was possible, Emmanuel Macron sent his diplomatic advisor, Emmanuel Bonne, to Moscow on February 3, 2026, to meet with his Russian counterpart. It seems that the discussion was rather frosty. The previous telephone discussion between the French and Russian presidents on July 1, 2025, had also failed to produce any results. After the meeting between the diplomatic advisers, some comments from the Russian government, notably from Sergey Lavrov, were rather caustic.
Now, Emmanuel Macron does not seem to be in any hurry to resume talks with the Kremlin leader, and some point out that he is instead seeking to reestablish contacts at the European level. The French president repeatedly emphasises that Putin has no appetite for peace and good-faith discussions. He has recently insisted on two occasions, during his speech at the Munich Security Conference and in a post on social media on the fourth anniversary of Russia’s all-out war against Ukraine, that the Russian people must face up to the monstrous war crimes that have been committed in their name.
Macron wants Europe at the table
Let’s be clear: the French president’s intentions are not to conduct formal ‘negotiations’, let alone to bypass Ukraine and other Europeans. His main aim is to bring France and Europe back into the game at a time when the Americans are monopolising discussions with Russia. Indeed, no one can trust Trump or his emissaries, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, to conduct such discussions.
Macron’s efforts aim to achieve the same goal as the Coalition of the Willing initiative, whatever one may think of its substance: to prevent any agreement unfavourable to Ukraine and Europe, forged separately and exclusively between Washington and Moscow.
One can and must certainly hear the argument that ‘Europe at the table’ would be preferable to Europe and Ukraine on the menu, faced with a Russian-American fait accompli, especially since Trump’s United States are clearly on Russia’s side and in reality has no interest in the future of Ukraine and Europe or in international law.
However, there are fundamental reasons limiting the validity of this argument. On the one hand, just because the Americans and Russians have reached an agreement—which they seem to have done some time ago—does not mean that Kyiv and Europe are obliged to endorse it. On the contrary, Ukraine expects Europe to support its right to say ‘no’. Moreover, a Europe too involved in discussions could be tempted to give in by endorsing an unacceptable compromise, especially if it is less catastrophic than the first Russian-American draft—the infamous 27-point plan.
Macron’s approach would also mean that he takes the so-called negotiations seriously, while in reality those are nothing more than a shadow theatre in which the Ukrainians are selflessly participating in order to retain the little military intelligence still provided by Washington, but without any illusions. They only hope to buy time at a moment when Moscow is showing signs of running out of steam, and Kyiv is strengthening its positions and, above all, its own military arsenal. Ukraine has obviously not lost the war, and giving Moscow a respite would be the worst possible solution. In short, there will be no peace agreement, and fortunately for Ukraine, that is the reality.
Why negotiations with Russia should be rejected
Beyond these specific considerations, there are fundamental reasons why any discussion with Putin’s Russia—or indeed with any Russian leader of the same ilk who might one day succeed him—should be rejected.
The first reason is that any discussion, let alone ‘dialogue’ or ‘negotiation’, with Putin would logically lead to a form of normalisation, if not legitimisation, of his regime. This is precisely what he expects—as we have seen in Anchorage, Alaska, in August 2025. Even if this is not the intention of Emmanuel Macron and European governments, engaging with the Russian regime would diminish its status as an international pariah due to the mass crimes it has committed.
It is also clear how the Kremlin, which is more skilled than Western democracies at propaganda rhetoric, could use such discussions to gain advantage in public opinion and further divide Europeans. There comes a point when the immensity of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and aggression—four categories of crimes without a statute of limitations defined at Nuremberg—precludes any form of discussion. Otherwise, how can democratic leaders maintain their firm stance on the essential punishment of these crimes? The only ones speaking to Putin and his henchmen should be the judges and prosecutors of the International Criminal Court and the special tribunal for crimes of aggression that is long overdue, as President Zelenskyy has pointed out.
The last meeting between Putin and Macron, on February 7, 2022 in Moscow. Photo: ANP / EPA
Moral objections
Apart from the above, there is nothing to negotiate with Russia at present. Can we negotiate the punishment of criminals? No, because international criminal law is not subject to negotiation or mediation. Can we negotiate reparations for war damage? Once again, the principle cannot be debated without rewarding the aggressor, even if, in the future, we may discuss the terms and timetable for the payments of reparations, which will likely extend over several decades once Russia has been defeated militarily. We are certainly not there yet.
Can we negotiate the return of Ukrainian children deported to Russia? This is especially non-negotiable, as it constitutes a crime of genocide under the Convention of December 9, 1948, on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The same applies to the return of Ukrainian prisoners of war and civilians. Finally, can we negotiate over the Ukrainian territories occupied by Moscow’s forces? Accepting this would mean that aggression ultimately pays and that violation of international law is acceptable. It would also give Putin and his followers a license to kill. We know that torture, mass rape, summary executions and deportations are the daily reality for Ukrainians living in these regions under Russian rule. To endorse this would be outrageous in terms of international humanitarian law. European leaders regularly and rightly assert their commitment to defending Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. They must stick to this principled objective.
The risks of unfavourable peace
There is a third reason not to engage in discussions: our security. Let us assume that a peace agreement is reached under the current conditions, followed by the lifting of sanctions. Such an agreement would be a sham and would herald an even more brutal, radical, and widespread war. In the territories occupied by Russia, the first teenagers are already forcibly conscripted. In total, around 1.6 million Ukrainian children and teenagers could be used as cannon fodder for the Russian forces, who would be deployed to fight against their Ukrainian brothers and sisters, and then against Europe. They would provide the manpower that the Russian forces are now beginning to lack. For any European forces deployed in Ukraine, this would pose an additional and even more formidable threat.
Lifting sanctions against Russia would give its devastated economy the breathing space its leaders are hoping for
Furthermore, lifting sanctions against Russia would give its devastated economy the breathing space its leaders are hoping for and provide it with additional resources to strengthen its war economy. This would further increase the risk of war for Europe, at a time when virtually all European leaders and their chiefs of staff and intelligence chiefs are warning about Russia’s intentions.
Let us imagine that a so-called peace agreement were to be signed with Russia. How would it then be possible to convince Europeans that large-scale and accelerated rearmament of Europe is vital? We would risk encountering public pushback and a form of demobilisation that would leave us defenseless in the face of new Russian aggression.
Towards a consistent European approach
The fourth and final reason relates to the objectives that Europeans, alongside Ukrainians, must pursue. Emmanuel Macron regularly repeats that geography is stubborn and that, whether we like it or not, we will always have Russia on Europe’s borders. For him and other European leaders, this is clearly a lasting threat that is not about to disappear. However, this is not a sufficient reason in and of itself to engage in discussions with a Russia whose ultimate goal is nothing less than total war and the destruction of Ukraine and Europe. As such, we cannot even consider reintegrating Moscow into any kind of European security architecture.
We must develop a clear strategy towards Russia, but this strategy can only be achieved through its military defeat in Ukraine. There is no other ‘war aim’ on our side that is consistent with international law, the radical evil that Russia today embodies, and with our own security. We must recognise—and the longer we wait, the greater the risk—that one cannot win a war by refusing to fight it, and that it is better for this war to be limited.
We must take a long-term, action-oriented perspective. Sanctions, which will have to be further strengthened, are here to stay. Russia must be weakened and rendered harmless. Talking to Putin today will take us further away from this goal and distract us from what is essential, reinforcing our cognitive dissonance between the real, albeit belated, awareness of the threat and the action needed to avert it. Let us finally be consistent!
Help ons om RAAM voort te zetten
Met uw giften kunnen wij auteurs betalen, onderzoek doen en Kennisplatform RAAM overeind houden en verder uitbouwen tot hét centrum van expertise in Nederland over Oost-Europa. Wij zijn een ANBI: uw gift is aftrekbaar van de belasting.
