France’s foreign minister told the BBC there was no ‘red line’ in supporting Ukraine

France’s Foreign Minister told the BBC there were no “red lines” when it came to supporting Ukraine.

Jean-Noël Barrot said that Ukraine could fire long-range French missiles at Russia “logically in self-defense”, but would not confirm whether French weapons were used.

“The principle has been laid down… our message to President Zelensky was well received,” he said in an exclusive interview Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg.

French President Macron said France is ready to allow its missiles to be fired at Russia as early as this year. But Barrot’s comments are significant, coming days after the US and UK long-range missiles used that way for the first time.

Barrot, who held talks with Foreign Secretary David Lammy in London on Friday, said Western allies should not place any limits on supporting Ukraine against Russia, and “not set and demonstrate red lines”.

Asked if this meant French troops would go to war, he said: “We don’t rule out any options.”

He said: “We will support Ukraine strongly and permanently if necessary. Why? Because our security is at stake. Every time the Russian army advances one square kilometer, the threat advances.” closer than a square kilometer to Europe”.

Barrot hinted at inviting Ukraine to join NATO, as President Zelensky requested. “We are ready to extend the invitation and so in discussions with friends and allies and friends and allies of Ukraine, we are working to bring them closer to the position,” Barrot said. our”.

And he suggested that Western countries would have to increase the amount of money they spend on defense, noting: “Of course we will have to spend more if we want to do more and I think we face challenges.” this new challenge.”

Barrot’s comments came later a week of significant escalation in Ukraine – with British and American long-range missiles being fired at Russia for the first time, Russia firing intercontinental ballistic missiles and Vladimir Putin hinting at the possibility of global war.

A British government source described the moment as a “crisis point” before winter and before Donald Trump returns to the White House.

But how should Ukraine’s allies respond to Putin’s threats and Ukraine’s increasingly dangerous situation? I have spoken to sources inside and outside the UK government to understand what the next steps might be.

At the top of the list are maintaining cash flow and military support. “I will invest three times the European amount in Ukraine and I will pursue Russian assets,” one source said. “We need to find the war resources that Ukraine needs to find to fight through 2025 and into 2026 – it’s hard to ask American taxpayers to pay for it.”

Unsurprisingly, there is strong feeling in the defense world that increasing the defense budget is part of the answer. The head of the army, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, who visited President Zelensky this week, told us two weeks ago that spending must increase.

But with money tight and the government reluctant to even set a date for reaching its target of spending 2.5% of GDP on defense, there is little room to suddenly inject billions of dollars more.

Government sources highlighted the long-term commitments the UK has made, especially supporting Ukraine with drones.

Intelligence we were able to reveal this weekend shows that Ukraine used drones in mid- and late September to attack four Russian ammunition depots, hundreds of miles from Ukraine. The strikes are understood to have successfully destroyed the largest amount of ammunition supplied by Russia and North Korea in the conflict to date. It has not been confirmed whether these drones were supplied by the UK or another country.

They also highlighted a treaty signed between Britain and Ukraine in July to help the country arm itself in the long term.

As for responding Putin’s increasingly threatening words? The message from many sources is: don’t panic.

One said: “All along the way he made threats – we mustn’t let that stop us.” What’s different now, according to a former minister, is that Putin’s comments are designed to catch the president-elect’s ear. “Russia wants to give Trump a reason to turn off assistance” If it seems like the conflict is becoming unacceptably dangerous, perhaps the next President will be more eager to end it.

When it comes to the next President, there is suspense while Trump’s plans remain unclear. Some sources say the hope is to put Ukraine in the best possible position for any negotiations, and an insider advising the government told me that could involve raising the stakes. Trump’s own negotiating ability. “To get [Trump] in the back of his mind that it was a good thing for Ukraine – so he looks like the guy who ended the war, not the guy who lost Ukraine.”

Privately, there are also suggestions of getting Ukraine to consider what is an acceptable way out of the conflict. In public, ministers will always say that Russia should not be rewarded for an illegal invasion and that Ukraine, and only Ukraine, should decide whether and when to negotiate and whether to any compromise or not.

But one source admitted that there is a perception within the government that “every negotiation has to have trade-offs”.

“We have to think about what can bring exchange to Ukraine,” said a former minister. “What if [Zelensky] must admit, what will he get? Will he get NATO membership to ensure long-term security?”

It is also recognized that the Russian threat is here to stay – whether in Ukraine or plotting sabotage on our streets. “They are actually allied with the North Koreans who are fighting and the Iranians who are supplying them,” a government source said. “We cannot see them as anything other than a threat now.”

Perhaps the reality is that the threat is more constant on the eastern edge of Europe. Perhaps Russia’s aggressiveness and dangerous alliances are returning to normal after a brief period of positivity in the 90s. “Get used to it,” said one source, “that’s the way they are. I have lived forever.”