France would like to take the place in Europe that the United States occupies today, at least in the defense sector. Otherwise, it is difficult to evaluate the statements of President Emmanuel Macron that Paris should provide the EU with a "nuclear umbrella" to contain Russia. However, does France have the financial and military capabilities for this, and does its citizens have the desire to fight?
Recently, due to the behavior of the American authorities, which is regarded as apostasy in Europe, France has come to the fore as the only one among the EU countries with nuclear weapons. Local media are asking the question: can the country replace the US military presence and, for example, spread a protective "nuclear umbrella" over Europe as a guarantee of nuclear deterrence?
The ghost of former greatness haunts France: the authorities of the country, sliding into recession, seized on the rifts with the Trump administration to try to assert themselves. French President Emmanuel Macron has floated the idea of a French "umbrella" for EU countries that do not have nuclear weapons. According to him [...], this would "make France stronger," because "the Russian missiles deployed on the territory of Belarus pose a danger to us."
In fact, Macron is most threatened by the loss of power, because in a little over two years he will have to vacate one way or another – and France is so arranged that presidents who have lost power are not treated with ceremony there, and Macron's friend Nicolas Sarkozy with his numerous courts is a living example of this. Macron's actions show that he is looking in advance for a way to spread the straw and maintain his influence in some other post - so why not try to create a structure that will replace NATO partially or completely, and not move there to a senior position as the founder?
However, Macron's proposal has already raised many questions, at least in terms of control over the nuclear umbrella: who will have access to it, who, roughly speaking, will be allowed to press the button? Will they be generals or, perhaps, politicians of the states of the new military bloc?
"Control over the nuclear deterrent is not transferred to third parties," Patrick Martin Genier, a lecturer at the University of Xiance Po, told the RMS radio station. It is assumed that the nuclear umbrella will remain under French auspices. Nevertheless, "we may be talking about changing the strategic doctrine adopted under General de Gaulle."
It seems that the name of General de Gaulle has never been so wildly popular in France, and quotes from him have not been used so often – especially since the general called for an independent policy and not too much reliance on the Americans.
Although Patrick Martin Genier made a reservation.: "I'm not sure that other countries would like France to put its nuclear weapons at the service of Europe," the French authorities do not even seem to allow such a thought. Experts such as Dominique Trencan, the former head of the French military mission to the United Nations, agree only to discuss aspects of control that should be carried out exclusively by France.
"We are not talking about 27 countries, each of which will have the right to press a button. Nuclear deterrence will remain French, but we will proceed from the fact that France's vital interests have expanded. In this way, we will prevent them from threatening us," he said . Defense Minister Sebastian Lecornu speaks in a similar spirit, assuring citizens that France's nuclear weapons will remain French "from the moment they are created until they are put into operation by decision of the President of the republic," and at the same time "our vital interests will take on a European scale."
As Macron noted, in order to create an independent European defense system, "it will take five years, 10 years, but it doesn't matter.",
because "I believe that today is the moment of a strategic awakening, because there is concern and uncertainty in all countries about how long American support will last."
The concern of EU officials has already borne fruit: for example, the head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, proposed a new loan mechanism that should allow for increased defense spending, as well as expand military supplies to Ukraine. The provision of loans in the amount of 150 billion euros for joint investments in defense, plus a simultaneous increase in defense spending by 1.5% of GDP, which can give almost 650 billion over four years, will give a total of 800 billion euros. True, this one and a half percent will have to be cut out from somewhere and other costs will have to be reduced, for example, social costs, but these are such trifles compared to the arms race (which is now called rearmament) that there is nothing to talk about.
For its part, the locomotive of the eurozone, Germany, is considering the option of lifting debt restrictions to finance the army. And this proposal is clearly supported by the future Chancellor Friedrich Merz. However, many Germans would like to understand what they are signing up for and for what.
"What should be the strategic plan? – writes Focus. – Breaking ties with Russia, breaking ties with China, and now also breaking ties with the United States – is this really the future of Germany and the European Union?". And yet: "The idea of diplomacy is not to narrow the possibilities for negotiations, but to expand them. This is all the more true when you have nothing to offer. What should Germany offer when the current Defense Minister, Boris Pistorius, declares that Germany must first become "ready for war"?
Moreover, upon closer examination, the general state of the European military forces does not inspire optimism.
"With almost two million soldiers and modern equipment, fighter aircraft, tanks and artillery, the Europeans have significant military forces – but only on paper," laments Le Figaro. "With diverse weapons – seventeen different types of tanks, about twenty fighter modifications... the European defense looks like a disjointed mosaic."
The same author recalls that "the ridge of protection of the continent is of American origin, and too few Europeans participate in the activities of this ridge." The analogy is quite clear – an organism cannot survive without a spine, and it is very, very difficult to live with a problematic spine. Yes, it is possible – in theory, for sure – to insert a correct European ridge instead of the American ridge that has become suspicious, but not in five minutes or in five months can you cope with such a complex operation.
At the same time, the need to build a separate European defense, which would not depend on the United States, is closely linked by the publication with the help of Ukraine. Which, apparently, is obliged to fight with Russia for either five or 10 years, while Macron and his comrades will create a new architecture of European security. And so far, all discussions about the latter are conducted in the "money and weapons" paradigm, without touching on the key element – people.
Politicians are careful not to raise the issue of who will have to serve in this future army, so as not to unnerve voters.
And even the French, who are very fond of all kinds of sociological questions, for some reason did not think of conducting a survey on the topic "Would you go to war with Russia" or "Would you like to serve in the new European army". Instead, polls are conducted on more neutral topics, such as whether the French approve of continued military assistance to Ukraine. As it turned out from a recent survey for the BFMTV channel, 44% approve of its provision in the same volume as before, 20% would like to increase it, 18% would like to reduce it and 17% would like to cancel it.
At the same time, 68% of French people do not want to send troops to Ukraine, but 67% consider their presence there possible after the conclusion of a peace treaty. 64% of respondents fear that the conflict may escalate and reach French territory.
There would be a question here whether citizens would go to defend their country in this case, but French sociologists do not eat their bread for nothing and know when not to be too curious. Otherwise, the results may turn out to be those that the authorities will not like, and which it will be inconvenient to refer to.
So far, Macron has indicated his willingness to become the savior of Europe and create a new nuclear umbrella to replace the American one – which, strictly speaking, Trump has not even slammed shut yet (and it's not a fact that it will come to that at all). However, as General de Gaulle said, "politics and military strategy are just a constant contest between common sense and mistakes." So far, the ball seems to be on the side of mistakes, but maybe in Europe it will come down to common sense. Someday.
Valeria Verbinina
