Photo via Le Monde
***
On Monday, February 24, French President Emmanuel Macron traveled to Washington D.C. for an official presidential visit with the newly elected U.S. President, Donald Trump. Closely monitored by the media, this visit happened at a very strategic and historic moment while negotiations for a ceasefire in Ukraine have started. But what are the diplomatic motives and the political consequences of this meeting?
Since Russia and the United States have become closer, simultaneously ousting Ukraine from the negotiations for peace, Europe feels even more isolated. This was the perfect occasion for Macron to organize a diplomatic visit to the White House. In fact, the relationship between Trump and Macron has always been regarded as peaceful compared to other European politicians; spectacularly tactile and strong handshakes were previously seen on international TV all around the world. The frankness and the profound respect from the French President has always pleased his American counterpart, for whom flattery is essential.
Everything in the meeting was subject to analysis, from the posture and gestures of President Macron to the words that President Trump used. Symbolism is crucial, especially knowing that France is trying to spearhead the return of Europe in negotiations while also attempting to navigate its relationship with the United States in light of the new administration. The physical aspect of smiles and gentle nicknames (Macron called Trump “dear Donald” several times) traduced the will of Europe to keep its old diplomatic friend close.
However flattering, the President of France still corrected and criticized Trump. Speaking of financial aid provided to Ukraine, Trump minimized the help coming from Europe, arguing that they will “take back their money.” Macron responded by underlining that Europe gave Ukraine “real money,” just like the United States. In fact, Europe had provided up to 60% of the total effort. Macron proceeded to symbolically touch Trump while smiling, marking what the New York Times has since called a “gentle resistance.”
The gesture is particularly significant in this scenario, as are the words. During this interview, Trump refused to call Putin a dictator, although Macron clearly affirmed that “the aggressor is Russia.” This symbolism, these words, and these gestures translate a will from the U.S. to appear stronger at the international level, as well as more authoritarian, by colluding with the aggressor rather than with the victim. This marks a considerable rupture with prior administrations regarding America’s foreign policy.
This meeting was therefore twofold in meaning. Although it epitomizes an attempt from Europe to navigate with the new U.S. President as part of an attempt to reemerge as a global power, the results are not as promising as expected. Does this lead to an evolution? Not really. In visiting Washington, Macron hoped to change Trump’s position on the war in Ukraine, aiming to obtain security guarantees in the event of a ceasefire with Russia. But Trump has made no commitment. Instead, he recognized the responsibility of Ukraine in the conflict and decided to vote with Russia twice at the Security Council of the UN the same day as the official visit. First, the U.S. opposed a European-drafted resolution supporting Ukraine’s territorial integrity that condemned Russia’s expansionist actions. In the same vein, the U.S. voted for a resolution that called for the end of the conflict without any criticism of Russia. Voting the same way as Russia, North Korea, and Belarus, the U.S. chose to isolate itself from its allies on the other side of the Atlantic.
This worrying vagueness in the negotiations brings even more confusion at the international level. On Thursday, British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer will likewise visit the new American leader in hopes of obtaining greater clarity on his policy positions. What a critical time in international relations: while the Eiffel Tower in Paris, the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, and European Union Buildings in Brussels were illuminated with the colors of the Ukrainian flag to mark their solidarity, the White House made no similar efforts, instead choosing to align itself with Russia. While stuck in the middle of giants, Europe tries to make its way through this ambiguous and new international decor.
***
This article was edited by Ainsley Coates and Emma Nina.
Andrew Kravatz 
Amelie Arango