I try hard to avoid this biased and proprietary tool. Meanwhile I can admit that I sometime experiment with open source language models that I can run locally on my machine. That being said, thank you for your valuable input on this topic.
Emmanuel Macron is erasing any semblance of strategic ambiguity. France’s so-called “adversaries”, as depicted by the president, now have clear confirmation that the EU lacks the capacity to confront them effectively. Bound by its reliance on American technology, there is little doubt that the United States will ensure the EU remains dependent on its logistical support. At the same time, the EU’s dependence on Chinese industry and Russian resources leaves it vulnerable, as these powers will undoubtedly seek to weaken its position relative to theirs. In this climate of strategic weakness, pushing for escalation risks widening the gap between the EU and its opponents, further destabilizing both France and the EU on the global stage.
Moreover, Macron’s neoliberal approach reveals a troubling pattern - the burden of this effort falls disproportionately on the already struggling population, while oligarchs and the ultra-wealthy are exempt from meaningful contribution. By failing to demand shared sacrifice from all French citizens, the government undermines its own narrative of urgency. This unequal distribution of responsibility not only deepens existing inequalities but also erodes the social unity needed to confront challenges of such magnitude.
Which of France’s allies truly believes that, in the event of an imminent threat of conflict with a nuclear power, France would be willing to defend an ally? Given France’s history of double standards and frequent shifts in stance, such a commitment seems highly questionable.
In theory, yes, Putin might be immune from arrest in France as long as he is a sitting head of state, due to customary international law on immunities. However, France’s position reveals a potential double standard. While it highlights the immunities of Israeli officials in its communication regarding the ICC, it has not explicitly clarified whether similar protections would apply to Putin or other officials from non-party states accused of crimes by the ICC. This lack of consistency leaves France’s intentions ambiguous and raises questions about whether political or strategic considerations outweigh its commitment to international justice.
Well, that doesn’t mean hope is high. Historically, France acquired nuclear weapons because it believes that only its own capabilities can guarantee its defense, rather than relying on the protection of another nuclear power. If France does not trust others to ensure its own security, why should its allies do that? In his speech yesterday, Macron emphasized that other European countries must develop their own defense capabilities. Furthermore, it is not a new concept that France’s nuclear arsenal also serves as a deterrent against attacks on its allies.
https://www.defense.gouv.fr/dgris/politique-defense/la-dissuasion-nucleaire-francaise