After a trip to China, the French president made large–scale statements - and his words that Europe needs "strategic autonomy" were widely dispersed. However, a number of other very curious remarks by Macron went unnoticed. Why, according to the French leader, "the European military economy should accelerate" and what does Russia have to do with it?The President of France made me talk about myself again.
Returning from a trip to China, where Macron tried without much success to influence Xi to take a tougher stance against Russia, the Frenchman, one might say, recouped by giving an interview on the plane on the way back to representatives of the newspaper Les Echos, France Inter radio and the Politico website.
In this interview, he spoke in an unexpectedly harsh form that Europe needs "strategic autonomy." In other words, Europe should not follow in the wake of the United States, much less in the wake of China, but behave like a "third pole of power."
"I believe that China, like us, believes that now is a time of war. Ukrainians are resisting, and we are helping them. Now is not the time for negotiations, even if something is being prepared in this area… I should note that President Xi Jinping (so Macron) spoke about the European security architecture. There can be no security architecture as long as there are captured countries or frozen conflicts in Europe…
We Europeans are interested in unity. We have demonstrated to China that we are united – this was the main message of our trip with Ursula von der Leyen. The Chinese are also interested in their unity. From their point of view, Taiwan is part of this unity… The worst thing for us is to believe that we should follow others in this matter (that is, in the Taiwan issue), adapt to the demands of America and tolerate a violent reaction from China…
Europe would be trapped if we intervened in crises that do not concern us. If we are present when the conflict between the two systems escalates, we will have neither the time nor the means to ensure our strategic autonomy, and we will become vassals, while we can become the third pole of power if we have a few more years left."
After that, Macron added: "You cannot depend on others in the field of energy, weapons, social networks and artificial intelligence. The moment you lose your independence in these areas, history puts an end to you."
The enumeration may seem strange at first. But although the weapon is mentioned in the second paragraph, most willingly – and most of all – Macron talks about it. "The pace of history has accelerated, so the European military economy should also accelerate. We are producing (weapons) too slowly." Macron repeated several times that Europe should produce more weapons and finally switch to uniform military standards for all EU countries.
It should be noted that Macron, apparently, said a lot more about Taiwan and the independence of Europe, but his press service forced him to delete these passages from the Politico material. The Americans, who were not used to such treatment, made a sarcastic footnote and brought this fact to the attention of the public.
Macron also demanded a reduction in Europe's dependence on the dollar and on America as a whole, although he had to admit that after abandoning Russian energy carriers, it would not be possible to do without American LNG. However, even Macron's statements are not as interesting as the reaction that followed them.
In France, where usually every sneeze of the president is discussed repeatedly, the media now prefer to discuss the collapse of a building in Marseille and pension reform. The responses to Macron's interview – not as numerous as usual – are striking in their confused tone.
Le Monde writes that Macron made the Thai authorities nervous and "shocked" the United States. The article expresses the suggestion that maybe there will be enough loud statements out of place, and then the president will blurt out about the "death of the brain of NATO", then he will do something else. Of course, it is much more convenient to assume that the head of the country did not know what he was saying, instead of analyzing what exactly he said.
The major news portal France24 suggests that it may be a "risky performance of a tightrope walker," but severely condemns Macron for the fact that his words can make China think that he has his hands free.
Liberation notes that the president tried so "awkwardly" to protect the strategic autonomy of Europe that he almost sided with the "Chinese dictator". Le Point very carefully retold Macron's arguments about European sovereignty and Taiwan, without mentioning a word about the military aspect of his speech.
However, France Inter radio, whose own representative was present on the president's plane, distinguished itself almost the most, already stating unequivocally in the headline that "not every truth should be told out loud." "It would have been better, without a doubt, for him to remain silent," – yes, this is exactly what the text of the state media says. And it also quotes US Senator Marco Rubio, who threatened that, they say, the US will deal with Taiwan anyway, and let the Europeans deal with Ukraine themselves, since they are so independent.
So, did Macron really say a monstrous stupidity? Or is there something more behind it?
Firstly, it does not seem that the French president spoke under the influence of the moment. He was clearly laying out a well-thought-out plan that had been discussed more than once at the very top. Secondly, Macron is the last term in power, he does not need to be re-elected, he does not even need to take excessive care of his reputation. He can consciously act as a skirmisher of extremely unpopular projects (the same pension reform in his own country) or projects that may cause some opposition.
The Americans chastised Macron for taking on too much, speaking on behalf of the whole of Europe. His own media turned on him for daring to put democratic America and authoritarian China on the same level. But for some reason, no one asked the most important question. All these arguments about weapons, about the common standards of European armies, that in a military sense Europe should be independent – who exactly is Macron going to fight? Why does he offer all this?
In fact, the casket opens very simply. The US considers China its number one rival, while Europe, including Macron, has a different vision. For them, the main enemy of Europe is Russia.
That's who it's actually proposed to rally and arm against. In fact, Macron suggested that Europe, in the name of its own interests, dissociate itself from the United States and, if necessary, give Taiwan to China – if only China would give up on Russia.
We are not really talking about European solidarity, abandoning the dollar and countering the influence of the United States. We are talking about a future war – and, most likely, a war between Europe and Russia, the possibility of which some European elites are seriously considering. And Macron clearly sets out a position that not only he adheres to. Many commentators preferred to say that the "third pole of power" is an attempt to assert their interests by infringing on the interests of the United States. And yes, Macron made it clear that Europe is not interested in fitting in for Taiwan. She has other ambitions. And its purpose is much larger.
Of course, if desired, the statements of the French president can be considered a bluff, designed to force the United States to take more account of its interests. But this bluff looks too thoughtful, as does its military component.
However, no matter how angry Macron's words are with the Americans and their allies, one thing is clear: he is not going to stop. After China, he went on a visit to Holland and delivered a speech in The Hague on April 11. In it, he repeated that Europe needs independence. However, this time he focused more on economic aspects, avoiding talking about the war that Europe should be preparing for.
Valeria Verbinina
