THE STRATEGIC ERROR OF PRESIDENT MACRON

ON NUCLEAR DETERRENCE

Should this warning from Emmanuel Macron on nuclear power also apply to Emmanuel Macron ?

On France 2 Tv, Wednesday evening October 12, 2022, the President of the Republic criticized the leaders who pour out too much, for his taste, on the risks of a nuclear war…

Before doing the same.

Invited to speak on international issues, the Head of State actually mentioned what could be - or not be - a French response to a Russian nuclear strike in Ukraine.

"Our doctrine is based on what are called the fundamental interests of the nation, and they are defined very clearly. That is not at all what would be at issue if there was a nuclear ballistic attack in Ukraine or in the region", he explained in front of Caroline Roux, even if it means revealing – a little – his game.

Because this answer, certainly convoluted, is surprising according to several observers and other specialists in these ultra-sensitive questions.

Should the Head of State have listened to his own advice and been less talkative about nuclear deterrence ?

A "necessary ambiguity", says the Elysée

In any case, this is the opinion of François Hollande, his predecessor at the Élysée.

"On the force of deterrence, credibility is to say nothing about what we will have to do (...). We must stop there", thus intimated the socialist on franceinfo, Thursday, the day after the intervention of the Head of State on France 2 Tv.

According to him, "we must be careful not to say anything to anyone who could trigger the weapon".

In short: a president should not say that if he wishes to preserve France's deterrent capacity.

Especially since the former tenant of the Élysée - and ex-chief of the armies -, never stingy with criticism of the current political staff, is not the only one to worry about the exit of the chief of the state. Several French specialists in defense issues are also wondering aloud.

"He was both too precise and not precise enough, evoking the French response to a nuclear strike in Ukraine, but also a strike in the region", judge for example Héloïse Fayet with 20 Minutes .

The researcher at Ifri's Security Studies Center says she is surprised to hear the Head of State speak of very clear "fundamental interests", while the doctrine mentions "vital interests", which must remain vague by essence.

Emmanuel Macron has "pushed very far, too much in my opinion, the slider towards clarity", believes for his part Bruno Tertrais, of the Foundation for Strategic Research (FRS).

“Any excess of precision allows the adversary to calculate too precisely the risks of such and such an initiative”, estimates the specialist in geopolitical questions in the columns of Figaro.

In this context, the Elysée defends itself from any imprudence. We praise, on the contrary, the tightrope walker position of Emmanuel Macron… without going into too much detail of his declarations and his doctrine on the matter.

An assumed artistic vagueness in the entourage of the Head of State, according to whom the latter has maintained "all the ambiguity that goes around deterrence."

"A necessary ambiguity", explained the Elysée, this Thursday evening. And probably scalable.

Macron, sole master on board

Nevertheless, the Head of State's comments on Wednesday evening raise several concrete issues. What, for example, does the "region" considered as outside our fundamental interests correspond to ?

The questions, "which do not call for any additional comment", remained unanswered on the side of the Élysée. A desire, no doubt, to re-thicken the vagueness that the main interested party has helped to lift.

Beyond these concrete strategic debates, the presidency wanted to insist on the fact that only Emmanuel Macron (who is also the chief of the armies) has a hand on this subject. "Deterrence is the responsibility of the Head of State, of his assessment at the moment T of what is necessary to safeguard our vital interests", specifies the Elysée, referring, among other things, to the speech of the President of the Republic of the month of February 2020 at the war school.

In other words: it is he who defines everything that nuclear deterrence is, from its doctrine to its use. Its pre-square.

But at a time when Vladimir Putin's threats are intensifying, the controversy linked to Emmanuel Macron's statements does not stop at the borders of France. According to the daily newspaper across the Channel The Telegraph, the British Secretary of Defense, Ben Wallace, regretted the exit of the French president, this Thursday, on the sidelines of a meeting of NATO ministers in Brussels.

His comments "reveal his hand", believes the British leader. As if, in poker, Emmanuel Macron showed his game to his opponent.

Still, the President of the Republic, criticized for his words, is not the only one to remove, on the merits, the possibility of recourse to atomic weapons. "Any nuclear attack against Ukraine will lead to a military response", certainly "so powerful that the Russian army will be annihilated", explained the head of European diplomacy Josep Borrell, Thursday evening, at the end of the meeting in Brussels. But this response will be "not nuclear", he took care to specify.

Same thing or almost on the side of NATO, which considers "extremely remote" "the circumstances in which the organization could have to use nuclear weapons".

"The objective of NATO's nuclear deterrent is to deter any attack against the allies", underlined Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. Which Ukraine, formally, is not.