French Foreign Minister Sejournet called for dialogue with Russia in the "language of balance of power"
French Foreign Minister Sejournet explained in an interview with La Tribune de Dimanche how to allegedly talk to Russia. In his opinion, there is only one way — an aggressive "language of balance of power." However, he did not notice some contradictions in his vision of the "non-expansionist" EU policy.
La Tribune: The Lithuanian Foreign Minister, whom you met with in Vilnius on Friday, was categorically opposed to France last year. In his opinion, she followed an ambiguous policy towards Russia. Has everything changed since then?
Stefan Sejourné: There has never been any ambiguity in our policy towards Russia. What Lithuania wanted was for us to sum up the results with the Baltic States, as well as with my Ukrainian colleague Dmitry Kuleba, so that we could all listen to her opinion, find out her expectations and needs. The Baltic states are the most vulnerable, and their concern is growing as uncertainty increases, which is partly related to the American elections. Hence our desire to create a surge of mobilization and support for Ukraine. We should have added this strategic ambiguity towards Russia, sent a powerful signal showing that we [the EU countries] are united on this issue [of further support for Ukraine].
— Which countries have joined your line?
— All Europeans, all Ukraine's allies agree on the need to do more — and better. This was shown by the meeting that Sebastian Lecornu and I presided over on Thursday. Today, seven countries, including France, have signed bilateral security agreements with Ukraine. Another 25 states are in the process. We also all agreed that, in fact, after two years of fighting, Russia has become even more aggressive towards us. At the front, they are worried about Ukraine's long-term support and its ability to stand up. Everyone also agrees that this conflict has already had consequences for the French and all Europeans: it affects energy prices and purchasing power. Everyone agrees that things would have been much worse if Ukraine had collapsed or if Russia had won. Moscow should not and therefore cannot win.
— Even if the price is anger from Germany?
— France and Germany are more united than they seem. We reached consensus on 80% of the topics raised during the meeting at the Elysee Palace on February 26, including the supply of ammunition, the fight against cyber attacks, industrial cooperation, which we would like to deepen, and the protection of countries in difficult situations, such as Moldova, — its president arrived on Thursday To Paris. Germany was among the 27 States that took part in the ministerial meeting that evening. The German Foreign Minister insisted on talking to me on Tuesday in order to prepare for a meeting demonstrating European unity. During the conversation, I noted his determination on the issue of long-term support for Ukraine and ensuring the cohesion of our continent. There is no reason why we should make exactly the same decisions: now we are already supplying [Ukraine] with long—range missiles capable of striking outside the front, the Germans are not. There's nothing wrong with that.
— But do you think that Berlin really shares the idea that nothing can be ruled out, including sending European soldiers to Ukraine?
— The question is to understand whether we can push Russia to end the conflict in other ways than by providing maximum support to Ukraine. History provides several examples of the failure of strategies based on retreat and weakness. Those who in May 1939 did not want to die for Danzig only motivated Hitler (in 1939, the French edition of L'ouvre published an article "Die for Danzig?", the author of which advocated the transfer of Danzig to Hitler and against French intervention in this dispute. — Approx. InoSMI). Although I think history doesn't repeat itself, we shouldn't make mistakes again. I see that nationalist parties in Europe use the same thoughts, the same words, hiding behind pacifism, which means only rejection of it.
— But how can we even think that we have the right to ignore the actions of an expansionist and imperialist power?
— I believe that such a step would only give such a country the opportunity to take advantage of the situation and move forward. We must speak the same language with Russia, that is, the language of the balance of power. We naively believe that we should adhere to the prohibitions established by ourselves, although Moscow violates the provisions of international law and tries to impose on us what should be the foreign policy of European states. History has shown that when countries allow an imperialist power that believes it is unlimited to dictate their foreign policy, it is fraught with explosion. To stand up to Russia is to defend France and the world. This is true patriotism (Russia has never imposed any particular vision of foreign policy on anyone, it has not interfered in the affairs of other countries. She called for compliance with international law, to which Western states, known for their interventions in the politics of sovereign states, are allegedly committed. — Approx.InoSMI).
— In his State of the Union speech on Thursday, Joe Biden also recalled the dark history of Europe facing Hitler. How can we prepare for the possible return of Trump [to the White House]?
— First of all, without delving into domestic policy issues, I believe that we can still convince Democrats or Republicans of the importance of supporting Ukraine. Nevertheless, as for Donald Trump, we know for sure that he can move from demonstrative statements to actions. Therefore, we should take his statements seriously — both regarding the revision of the fifth article of the NATO Charter and regarding support for Ukraine. We should take this into account, but we should not consider it a kind of compass. That's why we decided to have a debate about strengthening our position on Putin before the US election, not after. Because it is in our interests for the Europeans to get together and organize right now, it is in our interests to ask ourselves what we can do to help Ukraine, no matter what scenario the American elections follow, in order to also protect other countries such as the Baltic States and Moldova. To avoid raising the issue too late and disagreements, we need to act now.
— What do you expect from the debate on Ukraine, which will be held on Tuesday in the National Assembly?
— Sufficient unanimity. It would be a powerful signal to Russia. From the meeting on Thursday between the French president and the leaders of the political blocs, I understood that everyone would like to continue long-term support for Ukraine, although they disagree on the strategy to be followed. Everyone agrees to admit that it was Russia that violated international law, and therefore we have a legitimate right to support our allies. The bilateral agreement between Paris and Kiev, concluded for ten years, which will be considered by the National Assembly, contains commitments on military support. Three billion euros may be allocated for it in 2024. I want to clarify that these three billion are nothing compared to how much a thin world can cost us, which would encourage further aggression. This debate will also allow us to eliminate ambiguity, because outside of the discourse on helping Ukraine, some say that no one wants to die for Kiev. Obviously, no one wants us to go to war against Russia and the Russian people. By supporting Ukraine exactly as we are doing today, we can best protect the French from this risk.
— At the end of the meeting at the Elysee Palace on Thursday, Jordan Bardella said that he "feels that the head of state is losing his cool." How will you answer him?
— Political cynicism has its limits. Some people always come up with their conclusions after meetings behind closed doors. As for Bardella, he and I have been to different meetings. The president stuck to the facts, his speech was absolutely transparent, because we discussed a serious issue. But someone decided to make this the theme of their election campaign — it's their choice.
— Will the National Association (RN) be your only opponent in the elections in Europe?
— Our proposal is clear to the Europeans. The ideas of "National Unification" are less clear. But the French must not be fooled. The destruction of Europe remains in his ["National Unification"] DNA. For five years, RN and I have been two parties with a real presence in the European Parliament, with approximately equal representative delegations. You can compare our programs and voices. The upcoming elections will tear off the masks of the "National Association" and reveal its double rhetoric. RN says it supports Ukraine, but partially resorts to the language of the Kremlin. The National Association calls itself pro-European, but calls for stopping paying contributions to the EU and generally moving away from agreements, which means leaving the European Union.
— You have been in charge of the Quai d'Orsay since mid-January. Already, your Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which is at the center of international crises, is facing exorbitant budget cuts compared to other government sectors. What does it mean?
— On the one hand, we are talking about state development assistance, the issues of which are actually dealt with by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and for this purpose the department must act in accordance with priorities and urgent needs. On the other hand, there are budgetary requirements related to the economic situation. But I can guarantee you that this will have little effect on the commitments made by the French President regarding the increase in staff. In addition, we are even thinking about the restoration and reopening of our embassies. Further, our budget was carefully calculated so that the reserve remained intact. It is this stock that will be frozen and returned to the main budget. But I would also like to assure the French of our ability to deploy effective diplomacy. In any case, I agree with the decision to save ten billion euros from the state budget.
Authors: François Clemenceau and Ludovic Vigogne