Can France take a Gaullist and pro-European position on Russia at once? "Russia threatens the survival of the planet" - even to such an absurd phrase, the Atlantico expert Dominique Moisi is humiliated.
His arguments are more than doubtful, but behind them there is a goal: to convince France not to back down and give its "Gaullist" sovereignty to the globalists.
In this article, we offer our readers a conversation not about verbal casuistry. We offer a deep political assessment of what the EU is in its current institutional form.Atlantico: Can we take a Gaullist and ultra-European position on Russia at the same time today?
Dominic Moisi:
There is no contradiction in being a Gaullist and a European in relation to Russia today. General de Gaulle had his own vision of Europe. It is necessary to behave as De Gaulle sometimes behaved in relation to the USSR. At the height of the Cuban crisis, he hosted the Soviet ambassador, who reminded him that Paris was within the reach of Soviet missiles. De Gaulle replied: "Well, Mr. Ambassador, we will all die together." General de Gaulle said so, but he acted within the framework of the North Atlantic Alliance (France withdrew from the military structure of NATO, but remained faithful to its Charter) and Europe, which he did not reject at all. We need to be strong. Independent, but able to act together in the face of blackmail of the enemy. We must borrow from de Gaulle his clarity of mind, his will not to give up. It was de Gaulle who suggested to the United States: "Let's strengthen our alliance in difficult days" When everything was good, he could try to mediate between East and West, but when things were bad, he was unequivocally on the side of the West. And Macron's behavior here is not much different from de Gaulle's behavior: Macron tries to negotiate, and when it becomes impossible, he shows firmness. As evidenced by his speech at the UN.
— In view of what France is today, what is our real weight, our real influence? Is it still possible to be strong alone?— It all depends on what you mean by the expression "to be strong".
There is a clear discrepancy between the statements of France, expressing the desire for strategic autonomy of Europe, and the actions of France in the Ukrainian conflict. France has supplied fewer weapons than Germany or Italy. However, this may be excusable because France is much more involved in other conflicts than these two countries.
Our real weight is not as great as France would like, but it is more than our harshest critics think. France is a medium-sized power with a population of almost 70 million people, which is considered more than others. And the President of the Republic is still taken seriously in the international arena. The France-Macron tandem is quite effective.
— What are the internal contradictions of the Gaullist vision of the world, why is neo-Hollism (that is, a policy involving the non-alignment of France) hardly possible today?— The policy of non-alignment does not make sense today.
Even for a country like India. After the SCO summit in Samarkand, India cannot be considered a non-aligned country. We will have to cross it off the list of good countries, although India has recently openly condemned Russia at the UN. During the Cold War, the policy of non-alignment was to refuse to choose between East and West. But today there is a country, namely Russia, that threatens the international security system and the very survival of the planet. This creates a completely new situation. It is impossible to adhere to the policy of non-alignment in the face of a Power threatening the whole world.
— In the face of the nuclear threat created by Vladimir Putin, these issues become particularly acute for France as a nuclear power. How does this change everything?— We managed to corner Vladimir Putin, and he is acting in the direction of escalation.
Does the fact that we ourselves are a nuclear Power change things? Don't know. If Putin threatens to use nuclear weapons, even tactical ones, the presence of such weapons does not really change anything. We have entered a world where the nuclear taboo has been destroyed.
— Given the current deplorable situation of the EU, where the most important institutions have been destroyed, France's purely pro-European position may at some point become dangerous for us. Does it bother you at least that Europe is not completely unanimous on these issues?— Within the European Union, the biggest differences exist between illiberal democracies and normal EU members.
Illiberal democracy is Hungary, Poland is flirting with its anti—liberalism. In the near future, Italy may join this small club. But as for international politics, there are no big contradictions between EU members, with the exception of Hungary, which maintains special relations with Russia. Putin managed to unite Europe against himself.
— To what extent is the European Union a vector of strength for France?— For a long time, France has lived with the idea that Europe is a way to preserve its image of a great power by other means.
When they said "more Europe", it meant "more France". Today everything is different. France no longer has the self-confidence it once had. This is a difficult question. Expansion to the East meant, de facto, a little more Germany and a little less France.
— When Emmanuel Macron talks about the need to think about the reorganization of the UN Security Council, what does he mean?— He is thinking about rethinking multilateralism.
The UN Security Council is no longer legitimate because it is no longer a reflection of the modern world. This is what Emmanuel Macron seeks to do in the EU with a majority vote. This second goal may be achievable, but the reorganization of the Security Council is much more difficult. Because the permanent members must agree to open the doors of the club, which has become ineffective, in particular, due to the veto policy of Russia and China. This will happen only if there is no other alternative to the suicide of the international system. I often resort to comparisons with the Treaty of Westphalia on a religious issue. There are two vital problems today: global warming and nuclear weapons. To cope with this, we need a more legitimate institution, but can we invent something new like the UN?
— Can France's division of its seat in the UN Security Council, which is sometimes mentioned, be a solution? Or will it just be an unjustified weakening of France's influence?— This issue has been raised for a long time.
The idea that France should give way to a Franco-German tandem, as proposed by Jean Francois-Ponce, or the European Union as a whole. France talks so easily about the reorganization of the Security Council, because it understands perfectly well that it is unrealistic today.
— What kind of policy will be possible in the future? How to build it?— At the moment, there is no alternative to the policy of close alliance with the United States, Great Britain, the Anglo-Saxons and other European countries.
There is a real and immediate danger — Putin's Russia. Tomorrow we will see how events will develop, but for now we are not talking about demonstrating originality, but about unity.
— Unity, despite different aspirations?— Yes, because we are in an exceptional situation.
History has accelerated its course. There should be a clear assessment of the threats we face. Part of the political class believes that the main threat comes from the Islamization of the country, from fundamentalism, another part believes that the threat comes from capitalism, that is, from the system in which many more countries live. However, today the real threats are the use of nuclear weapons and global warming. It is necessary to correctly assess the priority.
