- Shift due to Russian aggression
- Political, electoral considerations
- Europe’s security prioritized
What influenced Emmanuel Macron to shift from a position of appeasement to one of hostility regarding Russia and Ukraine?
In chancelleries throughout Europe, this is the question being posed crudely put, as the French president acclimates to his new position as Vladimir Putin’s primary resister on the continent.
Poland and the Baltic states applaud President Macron’s apparent shift towards a more “realistic” evaluation of the threat posed by Moscow.
Germany, led by Chancellor Olaf Scholz, is particularly astounded by this recently discovered va-t-en-guerre (gung-ho) French character.
Everyone is perplexed and apprehensive. To what extent does the new Macron line exude authenticity? Is his recent insistence on justifying the deployment of troops to Ukraine merely one of his unexpected moves or evidence of his unquenchable desire to make a diplomatic hasty exit?
To what extent does his new positioning consist solely of political considerations?
As European elections draw near, it appears that the far-right candidates, including Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella, will easily defeat the Macronites.
Consequently, is Emmanuel Macron utilising the Ukraine conflict as a means to establish a dividing line between his faction and the opposition, contrasting his open hostility with Ms Le Pen’s previous acrimonious collaboration with Moscow?
During a live interview broadcast on French television on Thursday evening, the president made an implicit admission regarding the existence of these crucial enquiries.
However, in typical Macron fashion, his objective was to assert rather than appease. He explained his newly discovered alarmism rather than repressing it.
The president, unashamed in the slightest of his “transformation” from dovish to hawkish, maintained the position that one must inevitably come before the other.
He contended that it is only possible to definitively declare an adversary beyond a reasonable doubt once all attempts to communicate with them have failed.
Moreover, as the second component of his self-justification, he contended that the Russians have significantly escalated their aggressive behaviour.
He claimed that the Kremlin had “got noticeably harder-line” in recent months, putting the Russian economy on a permanent war footing, intensifying repression of internal opposition, and increasing cyberattacks against France and other nations.
As Ukraine appeared to be progressively besieged and the United States ceased to be a dependable ally, he asserted that Europe was entering a “new world in which events that were previously inconceivable actually transpire.”
France and Europe were required to prepare a pursuit, or mental leap from the cosy certainties of the expiring era into the harsh realities of the new one, in accordance with the new Macron doctrine.
He believes, in intentionally Churchillian tones, that Europe must be prepared for conflict in order to preserve international peace.
As is customary with Emmanuel Macron, the arguments are unassailable, and his logic is impeccable.
However, one must also consider the topic that although Emmanuel Macron may convince, is he capable of persuasion?
The enduring challenge faced by the French chief of state is not, in all honesty, a deficiency in intellect; rather, it is the capacity to transform that brilliance into a distinct skill set—leadership—a capability of inspiring others to follow suit.
Furthermore, it is only partially certain that the remaining parties will reconcile on this matter.
The most conspicuous indication is the schism that exists between the French leader and Olaf Scholz of Germany, who is ostensibly his closest ally in Europe.
Presently, both parties are publicly patching up and putting on the required common front in accordance with Franco-German tradition. Thus, Macron’s Friday visit to Berlin was possible.
However, despite any attempts at reconciliation, the underlying discord remains undeniable: France holds Germany accountable for dragging its feet in providing assistance for Ukraine and clinging to the US security umbrella with wilful ignorance; Germany accuses France of reckless aggression, hypocrisy (considering its arms deliveries to be significantly behind Germany’s), and Macronic grandstanding.
“Your path to wealth begins here – don’t wait, get your free Webull shares.”
On the Ukrainian issue, however, support for Emmanuel Macron is weaker domestically than he would like to believe.
A substantial majority, approximately 68%, opposes his position on deploying Western troops, according to polls. Overall, although the majority of individuals unequivocally hold a negative stance towards Russia, the Ifop polling organisation documents a “gradual decline in backing for the Ukrainian cause.”
Furthermore, if his new harsh line towards Moscow has an electoral underpinning driven by an attempt to expose the ambiguities of the far right, it appears to be failing. Opinion polls indicate that support for Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) continues to grow.
By transitioning to the forefront of the anti-appeasement movement in Europe, President Macron is reestablishing a precedent.
He is advocating for Europeans to give careful consideration to their security and the potential sacrifices that may become obligatory in the near future.
Certainly, this is all that is appreciated.
His challenge is that an excessive number of individuals react negatively to him.
They hold a negative opinion of his self-confidence and believe that he frequently conflates what is best for France, himself, and Europe with what is truly ideal for the entire world and Europe.
Chancellor told: EU’s £7bn bombshell cripples our investments
