Valdai Club

The recent televised address by the French president prioritized form over content, reflecting Paris’s current interest in artificially inflating its own importance, writes Alexey Chikhachev. The author is a participant in the Valdai – New Generation project.

On the evening of March 5, French President Emmanuel Macron delivered one of the most atypical messages to his compatriots in the history of the Fifth Republic. On one hand, the speech was entirely devoted to international issues – a rarity in France’s political system, where diplomacy is considered the president’s exclusive domain, free from direct accountability. On the other hand, the address contained alarmist, if not offensive, undertones, even by the standards of other Western leaders. Macron painted a dire picture for Europeans, suggesting that the US has effectively ceased to be France’s main ally, while the “Russian threat” looms ever closer. As the only solution, he proposed continued support for Ukraine until a peace favourable to Kiev is achieved, alongside a new push for increased defence spending at both the EU and national levels. Macron also emphasized France’s “special” position, citing its nuclear status and “the most effective army in Europe.”

From a factual standpoint, the speech struggles to withstand even minimal scrutiny. The claim about the strength of France’s armed forces is puzzling, given Paris’s recent failure to resolve the Sahel conflict and its hasty withdrawal from Africa.

Macron’s references to thousands of Russian soldiers and tanks by 2030 seem designed to stoke fear rather than inform. Similarly, accusations of Russian cyberattacks on French hospitals and interference in Romanian and Moldovan elections appear to be deliberate attempts to demonize Moscow. His promise to achieve peace through increased arms deliveries to Ukraine and the potential deployment of Western troops to the conflict zone, while linking Ukraine’s security to that of the EU, is striking in its specificity.

What matters more than the content of Macron’s speech – rarely detailed in his case – is its tone and timing. Three factors likely prompted this bellicose address, aimed at generating immediate media impact.

The first is France’s lingering great-power inertia. Post-World War II, French foreign policy has been shaped by a need to assert itself at the forefront of global affairs, seeking privileged status and leadership roles, particularly within the EU. In the past, this mind-set allowed France to play a positive role, such as promoting détente. However, in recent decades, France’s tilt toward Atlanticism has turned this reflex into a liability. Rather than seeking constructive solutions to international problems, Paris now focuses on securing a comfortable position within the Western camp. Once a nation that prided itself on balancing between great powers, France now appears content to be NATO’s most accommodating member, clinging to transatlantic unity more fervently than the US itself.

The second factor is the need to respond to the shifting foreign policy priorities of the US under Donald Trump. Macron has positioned himself as Trump’s antagonist, a role symbolically highlighted during their first terms when Macron vowed to “make the planet great again,” echoing Trump’s slogan. With the Democrats’ defeat in the 2024 US elections, Macron seems to see himself as one of the last defenders of the collective West’s values, rallying globalist forces against both Trump and Russia.

Interestingly, Macron and Trump agree on at least one key issue: the need for European countries to increase defence spending. While Trump employs a language of ultimatums, Macron frames the same idea more palatably, advocating for strategic autonomy and European responsibility. Their positions on Ukraine are not entirely opposed either: while Washington seeks to shift the burden of supporting Kiev onto the EU, France is eager to position itself as the primary coordinator of European aid, competing with Britain for this role. Yet, even in his address, Macron hinted at his hope for a US return to its previous stance. By gradually aligning with Trump’s demands, Macron may be seeking to win his favour and restore France’s reliance on Washington – a strategy that underscores Paris’s diminished global influence.

The third factor is France’s tense domestic situation. Since summer 2024, the country has been mired in a political crisis, with no stable parliamentary majority, a government under constant threat of no-confidence votes, and the president’s approval rating hovering just above 20%. The televised address was likely intended to project an image of a leader still in control, suggesting that domestic issues like the budget deficit, illegal immigration, and societal fragmentation pale in comparison to the urgency of geopolitical threats. Indeed, some polls showed a 7% spike in Macron’s approval following the speech. While this “rally around the flag” effect will be short-lived, it may last until summer, when early parliamentary elections could be called.

Notably, all three factors converge in Macron’s most provocative idea – reopening the debate on French nuclear weapons. By hinting at a potential “Europeanization” of its nuclear arsenal, Macron underscored France’s self-proclaimed role as the EU’s defender. At the same time, the proposal seemed like a response to Trump, signalling France’s willingness to take on greater defence responsibilities. However, Macron was quick to reassure domestic audiences that France would retain full control over its nuclear weapons. The idea, much like his broader rhetoric, appears designed to assert France’s status rather than offer concrete solutions.

Macron’s approach echoes Napoleon Bonaparte’s famous adage: “Let’s get involved and then we’ll see.” Yet, as history shows, such a strategy often proves destructive, yielding little benefit for France or Europe. Today, Macron seems more focused on securing a seat at the table than on addressing the real challenges at hand.