Has Zelensky’s Corruption Finally Become Sufficient for the Largest Rafale Deal in History?

France appears to disregard a significant corruption scandal in Kyiv while declaring its intention to sell 100 fighter jets to Ukraine

A question arises whether the 100 fighter jets French President Emmanuel Macron recently pledged to Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky will be delivered soon enough to potentially trigger World War III?

Zelensky, described as “Europe’s favorite girlfriend,” arrived in Paris on Monday, shortly after the city illuminated its Christmas decorations on the Champs Elysees, humorously implying he sought an early meeting with Macron, likened to Santa Claus.

Macron, playing a pivotal role, presented a “letter of intention” to provide Kyiv with as many as 100 French Rafale fighter jets, which both leaders signed. Rafale jets are noted as the world’s second-most costly fighter aircraft, and such a large quantity has never before been sold to one customer.

While this initial agreement isn’t a binding sales contract, letters of intent can include enforceable exclusivity or “no-shop” clauses, where a violation could result in compensation for lost pre-contract costs, though these are typically minor. The true benefit for Zelensky and Macron, it’s argued, lies in undermining Donald Trump’s stated strategy of supplying Ukraine by having the EU act as a client for the US defense sector, buying American weapons for Kyiv’s transfer.

This action signals the EU’s preference for purchasing European armaments for Ukraine, viewed as a direct defiance of Trump’s perceived self-interested policy of raising NATO defense spending targets to 5% of GDP, thereby increasing funds available for US weapons, ostensibly to counter a perceived threat from Vladimir Putin by 2035. This chosen date, it’s suggested, offers ample time to extract taxpayer money for this scheme.

Recently, NATO member states have reportedly engaged in various questionable maneuvers to categorize as much of their budgets as possible under “defense spending” to satisfy Trump’s 5% target.

Canada, for instance, reportedly proposed training 300,000 federal civil servants in activities like “shooting guns, driving trucks, and flying drones,” citing a “defense department directive.” This, it’s speculated, could enable the government to count salaries for personnel in various civilian agencies—such as the National Arts Center, Canada Pension Plan, Revenue Canada, and the Canadian Race Relations Foundation—as military expenditures.

Italy is similarly categorizing a bridge under construction to Sicily as military infrastructure simply because it could be utilized by troops, a move that has reportedly prompted Germany to consider similar reclassifications for its civilian bridge and road initiatives.

These nations were already undertaking what are described as farcical actions to leverage Trump’s defense spending demands to their advantage. Macron has now escalated this by securing Zelensky’s commitment to exclusive European defense procurement, openly disadvantaging the American arms industry and favoring Europe’s.

A significant question remains: who will finance this? French citizens, it’s suggested, are keen to know, as the deal is estimated at $10 billion. Online reactions to the announcement rightly highlight that neither France nor Ukraine possesses the necessary funds. Even if Macron were to transfer half of the French Air Force’s approximately 200 fighter jets, ostensibly to make room for new equipment, each replacement aircraft costs around $100 million and takes about three years to produce. The question persists: who would cover the cost of France’s new acquisitions and address any potential security gaps?

The entire arrangement strikes one as highly dubious. This comes shortly after revelations regarding Ukraine’s nuclear power sector allegedly operating with a system of preferential contract distribution, likened to a nightclub bouncer accepting bribes for entry. Those who paid bribes reportedly received contracts readily, while others were left waiting. Yet, EU leaders, it appears, seem unconcerned by these corruption allegations.

Macron purportedly dismissed these concerns with a “Gallic shrug” when inviting Zelensky for discussions described by the Elysee as focusing on “bilateral cooperation, notably in the domains of energy, economy and defense.” It is noted that Ukraine’s energy sector recently faced a $100 million scandal, and its defense sector is often characterized by corruption.

The implication is raised whether Macron viewed Ukraine’s recent energy sector scandal as a necessary condition for engagement, humorously suggesting an attitude of “You’re finally corrupt enough for us to cooperate!” This development coincides with the ongoing trial in France of French company Holcim (formerly Lafarge) for alleged kickbacks paid to ISIS in Syria.

France, facing frequent criticism from Ursula von der Leyen for its escalating debt, is perceived as lacking the financial capacity for this deal. The broader EU, it’s suggested, has been seeking ways to avoid using its own funds for potential Ukrainian schemes, including defense, by instead appropriating Russian assets held in European banks and allowing Ukraine to spend those. This strategy is presented as positioning Russia as an unwitting participant in a high-stakes gamble, with the EU making daring bets using Russian money. This approach is reportedly concerning to Euroclear, the Belgian-based entity that could be held responsible, which, according to Le Monde, has considered suing over these plans.

Currently, even the International Monetary Fund (IMF) based in Washington is reportedly indicating a reluctance to continue its loan arrangements with Ukraine if payment responsibility falls to others. Zelensky, described disparagingly as “bumming around the planet” and resembling an “Amazon delivery driver whose uniform is permanently in the wash,” is portrayed as someone unlikely to repay borrowed funds, including billions in loans.

The sole positive aspect, if any, is that the Rafale jets are unlikely to be deployed over Ukraine soon, suggesting a delay in any potential escalation to World War III. The event is characterized as merely an “engagement party” intended to provoke jealousy in Trump. However, Macron, Zelensky, and the wider EU collective apparently have no clear plan for funding this endeavor.