Putin's French appeasers
President Macron champions European resistance to Russia, but his successor may not
After the US switched from helping to squeezing Ukraine, France took a leading role in European efforts to help a country under attack. Emmanuel Macron went to Washington for a frank exchange with Donald Trump. The French president saw that Europe was alone more clearly than other allied leaders who hoped against hope for continued transatlantic solidarity. He has since hosted two European summits to pave the way for a common defence and suggested extending the country's nuclear shield.
Other French voices have struck a chord internationally. In a recent speech that went viral (and which I translated), centre-right senator Claude Malhuret compared the Trump White House to Roman Emperor Nero's court and called Vladimir Putin a "dictator supported by a traitor". At the EU parliament last week, Socialist Euro-MP Raphaël Glucksmann led calls for tougher sanctions on Moscow, including seizing frozen assets.
You might think that such clarion calls reflect a strong national consensus. In fact, they point to the opposite: French advocates for solidarity with Ukraine are forced into feats of oratory by a difficult political and media environment. France may be a pillar of resistance against a resurgent Russia for now, but it is a weak one.
Unlike British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, France's minority government does not enjoy unanimous parliamentary support on Ukraine. The largest opposition party, the right-wing National Rally (RN), has declined to back military aid to Kyiv both in the French and the European parliaments. Its leader, Marine Le Pen, has shown no sympathy towards President Volodymyr Zelensky. After his Oval Office humiliation, she said she found it "fairly normal" that world leaders should "speak with passion" in defence of their national interests. This kind of clash, one of her deputies averred, was "nothing unusual" in the US.
Although Le Pen no longer proclaims her admiration for Vladimir Putin and has condemned his assault on Ukraine, she has denied that it is France's problem – or Brussels'. She called a common European defence a "fool's errand". When Macron went on TV in early March to call for rearmament as Russia "is now a threat to France and to Europe", Le Pen accused the president of "playing on our fears". The main danger to the country, she added, was not Russian missiles, cyber-attackers or disinformation agents, but "Islamic totalitarianism".
The RN shrinks from even symbolic moves in the stand-off with Russia. The party abstained from a non-binding parliamentary resolution on increasing support to Ukraine. Opposition is even stronger from the opposite side of the spectrum. La France Insoumise (LFI), the dominant party on the left, voted against the resolution, along with the Communists.
Like the National Rally, LFI has condemned Russia's attack on Ukraine but argues that Macron is conjuring up a Russian menace to France for political motives. "Warlike rhetoric" is being used to "force through a programme of dismantling welfare programmes that has been rejected by voters", one senior party MP said. According to another, the government is spreading fear and advocating rearmament not to fight Russia but to "wage social war on the country". LFI's leader, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, advocates "non-alignment" in the conflict and the deployment of UN peacekeepers to guarantee any ceasefire – in effect giving Russia a right of veto in future security arrangements in Ukraine.
French politicians are not arguing over the best way to counter a hostile power – differences over strategy, resources and trade-offs required are normal, indeed healthy, in a democracy. The debate is over whether a threat exists. And the main opposition parties – which account for about 40% of MPs - do not believe it does.
Moreover, some mainstream politicians share this scepticism. David Lisnard, a rising star on the centre-right, denounced a "hysterical dramatisation of the debate fuelled by the president, who wants us to believe in an existential risk for France from Russia." Henri Guaino, a former top presidential aide, is among a number of conservatives who blame the West for tensions: "If we are aggressive and supply weapons (…) that kill Russians, it is not surprising that we are faced with an aggressive state." Former Defence Minister Morin, a centrist, warns that Macron's "provocation" could lead to "escalation".
The French media landscape helps amplify contrarian views. In Britain, such ideas are mostly confined to small TV channels with a populist flavour and a click-bait business model. In France Macron is routinely accused of warmongering on CNews, a leading free-to-air channel, and radio giant Europe 1, two outlets owned by billionaire Vincent Bolloré.
In one recent debate on CNews, a prominent pundit dismissed German intelligence warnings about Russian destabilisation efforts in Europe as "poppycock". Germany's security services, he added, had a history of "waging disinformation campaigns, notably during the war in the former Yugoslavia". Another panellist rhetorically asked whether anyone had heard Macron-style "anxiety-inducing" talk from any other European leader.
The host, who presumably spent a few minutes reading up on the subject, might have cited Keir Starmer ("Russia is a menace in our waters and skies…They have launched cyber-attacks on our NHS (and) assassination attempts in our streets"), Friedrich Merz ("This really is five minutes to midnight for Europe"), Ursula von der Leyen ("Europe faces a clear and present danger on a scale that none of us have seen in our adult lifetime"). But the claim that the Russian danger is a fantasy arising from the fevered brain of a flag-waving president remained unchallenged.
The acrimony that characterises public discussions in France on how to deal with Russia seems puzzling. Other European governments benefit from a large degree of consensus. The reason cannot be greater polarisation among French voters: polls have shown that 80% of French people see Vladimir Putin as a threat to the continent – about the same as in the UK, Germany, Italy or Spain.
Alternatively, you might point to the hung parliament that resulted from the snap election disastrously called by Macron last summer. This explains why the government is weak and the opposition strong – i.e. the balance of power between rival blocs – but not the positions they take. If Macron had secured the majority he sought, he would still be facing major opposition parties that challenge him on national security.
I would suggest that, in this respect as in others, disunity is grounded in the infantile disorder of French politics: an obsession with total control. The founding principle of the Fifth Republic brought forth by General de Gaulle is that leaders should face no obstacle until the next election. He who governs most governs best. I have previously argued that this winner-takes-all syndrome is the root cause of the country's paralysis. There is only so much a superhero can achieve.
This is not a novel idea: for centuries liberals have defended limited, collaborative government not just on principle but for the sake of efficacy. France's elective autocracy brings out the worst in both the rulers and the opposition. Sanctified in the ballot box, presidents can ignore everyone else. Their rule is both absolute and brief, as they become a focus for all malcontents. With no skin in the game, opponents are encouraged to advocate "rupture", "changing life" or "revolution" for the next ballot. Everything the other side has to be wrong.
Whatever the cause of France's lack of political consensus over Russia, the potential consequences are clear: on current trends, the 2027 presidential election is likely to pit Mélenchon against the Le Pen in the second round. And if this happens, the next French president will be a Putin appeaser.
This matters for all of Europe. Trump's decision to restore Russia's standing as a great power and cast doubt on NATO commitments has been a wake-up call for the continent. Countries that have relied on US protection realise how vulnerable they are. F35 fighter jets that cannot operate without Washington's approval offer scant reassurance. Even Britain depends on American for its nuclear arsenal.
France is the only European country with a history of military independence (although it too uses US systems on its aircraft carrier and for its SCALP cruise missiles). Active French involvement is thus vital in the long run to forge a common, integrated defence. Such a momentous plan will be difficult to implement under the best of circumstances. The advent of a Eurosceptic government in Paris would put paid to them.