On Saturday, December 3, 2022, Emmanuel Macron stated in a tv interview:
"The West should consider what it is willing to do, how to defend allies and associate States and how to give guarantees of Russia's safety on the day of its return to the negotiating table."
Importantly, the interview was given shortly after the French president spoke to the US president Joe Biden (1.XII). 1 subject of the discussion was the issue of safety architecture in Europe after the war in Ukraine.
Many Polish and Ukrainian commentators read Macron's words as a declaration of readiness to make concessions for Moscow. As long as this is the only 1 who agrees to enter the peace talks. According to some, Macron was thus expected to mention to Russian demands against NATO presented by Sergei Lavrow on 10 December 2021. It was then that Russia's MFA published a message that presented Russian expectations of NATO. This occurred 3 days after the Biden-Putin conversation (7.XII.21). Moscow demanded the cessation of the expansion of the alliance to the east (Georgia and Ukraine) and the ban on the deployment of strike weapons in countries bordering Russia. In addition, NATO military exercises in the countries mentioned above were restricted, as well as a number of another conditions. The Russian side did not ask for “security guarantees” in this message – this phrase was later utilized by commentators who wanted to explain in a more general way to the recipients what they wanted to do de facto The Russians can walk. The message was a pleasurable one, and it truly was an introduction to the further gameplay of the Kremlin. It is worth remembering that his publication took place erstwhile Russia was already moving troops to the border with Ukraine with large intensity.
With all another Russian militant group deployed on the border with Ukraine, the Russian attitude became more assertive and aggressive. The next request of Lavrow was about:
‘withdrawal of abroad forces and weapons and another steps to reconstruct configuration from 1997 to the territory of countries which were not NATO members at the time’,
and a declaration of non-acceptance to the Georgia and Ukraine Pact. The point is, Lavrow presented his demands as ultimatum coming from the position of force. State forces, which were already determined to carry out another “operation” in Ukraine. There was no request for a "security guarantee" or even an effort to scope any agreement or to search common negotiating levels. These were demands that Russia would give casus belli. These conditions were impossible to fulfil, due to the fact that a number of countries should be expelled from NATO, including Poland. The awareness of this was surely on both sides, and Moscow acted here with full premeditation. Even then, Moscow's demands could not be taken seriously, namely Putin's sincere attempts to scope agreement. Today, too, they should not be a mention point for the words of the president of France. On the contrary, it seems that Macron – on behalf of the West (NATO) – even reprimands Putin from the position of force.
I will effort to justify this thesis to you below, knowing that it is completely contrary to the opinions and courts already heard. Nevertheless, I think that my explanation is worthy of attention, and possibly even much closer to what is actually happening.
At the same time, referring to the utmost position presented by any that Macron utilizing the word "security warrant for Russia" refers to the latter, absurd demands The Kremlin a year ago is simply a immense misunderstanding. After all, fulfilling the demands of Lavrow would mean de facto The surrender and the dissolution of NATO. Today, in the face of the disastrous situation of Russians on the Ukrainian front, the search for Western submission to return to form from 1997. is an utmost attitude that goes far beyond the communicative of Russian propaganda.
In turn, with an explanation saying that Macron nevertheless weakened the position of the West in Putin's eyes. If we lived in different realities. However, as always with circumstantial sentences, context is important.
Weak Russia, powerful France
But before we get to that, it is worth pointing out first of all the meaning of the phrase: “provide safety guarantees for RussiaIt’s okay. ” For this kind of wording carries an interesting luggage of information. In diplomatic language – especially written – all phrase is highly important, as in the law. Of course, public verbal declarations are little formal, but people who talk the language of diplomacy (like the legal language) usage certain phrases on intent and know precisely what information they carry with them. They are besides aware that the another side will read them correctly. There are sometimes failures, but Emmanuel Macron is already a second word president and should be considered an experienced and conscious orator. It is so worth a brief linguistic analysis of the controversial passage of the French President's statement.
One crucial issue must be noted at the outset. Giving individual a warrant means they're besides weak to take care of their own safety.. How should this be understood in the context of the Russian Federation, whose elites considered themselves to be the "second army of the world", which army has the most powerful atomic arsenal and the strongest land troops (this image was created by the Kremlin and on interior and external needs)? In fact, it can be said that Emmanuel Macron made a mockery of Putin and measured his cheek, stating that:
If Russia feels threatened by NATO and feels weak adequate to defend itself against NATO, then the West is ready to promise that Moscow is safe from it.
This is how the French declaration can be read from Putin's position and the Cremovian elites convinced so far of their own omnipotence and military advantages. So far, Moscow has been convinced that, in military terms, the only partner equal to the Russians is the Americans. This is confirmed by many treaties on control and restrictions on arms on the US-Russia line. The fact that it is not Joe Biden, and Emmanuel Macron talks about Western safety guarantees for Russia is besides eloquent. Although France is an atomic power, from the position of the Kremlin, the French only play in the second league. Imagine that the president of Slovakia would like to get something from Poland and, in order to convince Warsaw to negotiate, would say that as an incentive, he promises us a warrant of security... Of course, the example may not be perfectly correct, but it is only intended to illustrate 1 of the contexts of this declaration.
In conclusion, in my opinion, E. Macro has deliberately utilized specified a phrase alternatively than another 1 – which could even be considered a manifestation of a French sense of humor (set in a French feeling of superiority). And indeed, speaking of giving Russia safety guarantees by the West could be considered a mockery... Even a year or 2 ago. However, Macron's message should be put in reality.
French (no)energy dependency
It is worth reminding here that France is 1 of the most dependent countries in Europe erstwhile it comes to gas and oil imports. Despite this, it has besides proved to be 1 of the most resilient states in terms of the crisis caused by the war in Ukraine. France has the second lowest inflation rate across the European Union (slightly over 7%). In June 22′ France joined the group of countries (Poland, Denmark, Bulgaria, Finland and the Netherlands), which completely cut off from Russian gas. Although the French must import almost all the gas request (no own deposits), this should not be surprising. So far, in the energy mix of France, gas and oil (total) had a share of little than 10%, as the country over the Seine atom stands (approximately 70% share). Therefore, the cut-off from Russian supplies is not painful in terms of the needs of the energy sector.
The French have easy access to natural materials from the UK, but can besides import them from outside Europe – mainly from Africa due to political influence – through a well-developed port infrastructure. The LNG terminals and naphthoports were built on all side, over the Channel, the Mediterranean and the Bay of Biscay.
And although France must import almost 100% of its oil demand, it has many alternatives to Russian natural material, which in 2021 had little than a 9% share in the French market.
Lack of sense of threat from geographically distant Russia, deficiency of dependence on Russian energy resources, as well as comparatively insignificant negative economical effects associated with the conflict in Ukraine. Would Macro always think of a submissive attitude towards Putin? With the strongest and most modern army of the European Union, as well as the second economy of the EU (almost $3 trillion in 2021), which beats on the head of this Russian (1.8 trillion in 21′) 1 can have a somewhat different perception than that which accompanies Poles, Ukrainians, or Baltics. Emmanuel Macron's proposal to warrant safety for Russia may even have been an unconscious and unintended but natural emanation for the French of a sense of superiority and their own strength. The force, which is justified in the real circumstances (though these above). How we or even Putin perceives French strength is simply a very different subject, while for the Paris elite, the manifestations of submission to abroad policy are now something foreign. We Poles see the French on the basis of the carbons from the inter-war period, erstwhile French politicians were guided by the line appeasement. Since then, it has been a 100 years, and France has been able to become a atomic power (self) and to leave, and to return to NATO. The French, in their abroad policy, are based on the memory of the arrogant presidency of Charles de Gaulle (when France actually came from its knees) alternatively than on the period of shame and shame preceding planet War II. The modern French state is simply a completely different France than the 1 from 1939, France which has rather a fresh restoration myth. The French see themselves as a arrogant nation with a strong state.
In view of all of this, it is crucial to remember that the same conviction spoken by others may have dramatically different meanings. It is crucial that the words in question are spoken by the president of France convinced that he is the head of the strongest and most independent state in Europe, or, for example, the president of Estonia, who fears that his own country will survive. By saying the same sentence, they can both mean something completely different. Therefore, erstwhile interpreting the words spoken by the leaders of nations, it is so crucial to know the context, cultural and historical, social and even economic, military and geopolitical conditions.
Russians, look what you're missing.
With this in mind, it is worth verifying your approach to another statements by the French President. For example, Emmanuel Macron reportedly stated late that he would like in 2024 to see representations of Russia and Belarus at the summertime Olympics in Paris. This kind of message may besides be misinterpreted. We, as citizens of Russia's feared states, automatically read it as a "request". We can get the impression that Macron hopes Russia will be at the games, due to the fact that then it will mean that we are no longer in danger. However, in the mouth of the French president, this is not a sign of a tendency to compromise towards Putin, but a deliberate message to the Russians saying: “See how much you loseAgreeing to wage war by their own elites”. The French side, as the organizer of the games, thus makes it clear that it is up to the Russians' position to let them to participate in global social and cultural events. And what the West expects from Russia – what is communicated straight – is to halt aggression in Ukraine and retreat troops from its borders. Again, this kind of reminder to the Russians of the peculiar issues or sanctions that affect them is simply a force-made act: “We French – as an organizer – can let you into the Olympics or not. This depends on your attitude and willingness to make concessions."
To interpret specified messages in the other way: “We are weak, we would very much like you at the Olympics, tell us what we gotta do to aid you” has no logical basis – especially due to the geopolitical and economic-military conditions described below.
NATO threatens the Russian Federation?
In a broader context reality looks even worse for Russia. In consequence to the second Russian aggression against Ukraine (24.II.2022), NATO states located on the alleged east flank began to arm themselves. besides in the area of arms giving considerable offensive potential, which they did not have. Poland invests, among others, in hundreds of rocket launchers with a scope of respective 100 kilometres. all now and then, the subject of the program comes out. nuclear sharing, which would besides cover the III RP. Both themes only appeared after a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Earlier, Poland ordered HIMARs, but in a alternatively symbolic quantity compared to current orders and plans.
That is not all due to the fact that even small Estonia has just signed a contract for purchase HIMARS, including missiles to them within 300 km. For now it is expected to be 18 pieces – so it is simply a signal for Russia alternatively than a threat. However, at any minute these missiles will be able to deliver more to the Estonians. This means that comparatively safe to date St. Petersburg will be within scope of the NATO land-ground missiles. Lithuania and Latvia are besides curious in acquiring specified schemes. Romania has already placed its order. Further sets of HIMARS are transferred to Ukraine, although in this case there is simply a limited scope of fire. What does all this mean? That while the Russians' request of December 10, 2021 to not deploy the impact weapons on the alleged east NATO flank afraid a possible condition (such systems had or were to have only Poland and this in tiny quantities), it is now crucial to talk about the future and the certainty. NATO's east flank will arm itself to the teeth, and it besides in the field of impact weapons, as defined by the Russians. In another words, NATO countries responded to Russian aggression against Ukraine by actions that she did not want to allow... This is not the only example of Kremlin's “success” and its counter-effective abroad policy led from the position of force.
In addition, NATO will be extended to Finland and Sweden. Finland has already decided to acquisition 64 F-35 pieces. Aeroplanes that have the possible to penetrate into hostile territory, break through and destruct its radar and anti-aircraft systems, and yet attack delicate targets. besides with missiles a fewer 100 kilometers. Let us add that Poland besides purchased 32 of the machines in question, as well as having JASMM-type missiles that can be fired from the already existing F-16s. In another words, at any moment: Kaliningrad Oblast, Belarus, as well as the northwest land border of Russia will face a threat of conventional possible from countries which have not yet been able to make threats on specified a scale. Again, more broadly, NATO builds offensive/hitting possible close to the Russian border and increases by 2 Scandinavian countries, which have so far preferred to stay neutral.
Finally, it should be remembered that the military capabilities of the Russian Federation have been brutally verified in the conflict in Ukraine. RussianThe rhymium suffered considerable losses in humans and equipment, and besides showed many weaknesses and shortages. From this perspective, Russia's military possible is exhausted from each day of conflict. Weak. On the another hand, NATO states increase military possible and review the existing policy of austerity on armaments. So with each next week, the proportion of forces on the military level in the context of the NATO-Russia duo changes. To the detriment of the another one.
In summing up these above mentioned facts, it must be concluded that Macron's words about giving Moscow safety guarantees are not so much a mockery as a real demonstration of Western military advantage over Russia. The emanation of a sense of strength and its own superiority over a weakened and mostly demythologized Russian military potential.
After all, the substance could be put in another words. "Common building of safety architecture", "partner/equal treatment" etc. Meanwhile, the French president utilized the wording he uses stronger than the weaker side. It's apparent that Russia's position was demolished before she could sit for peace talks. To show her that she is in a weak, so defeated role. For only the winner can offer safety guarantees to the another side.
Buy a book or book: “Third DEKADA. The planet present and in 10 years” and find out what may be waiting for us in the coming years. All copies ordered in December will receive an autograph
Three DEKADA. planet present and in 10 years
If the Russians are falling apart and NATO is getting stronger, then the explanation of Macron's words as a sign of weakness and inviting Putin into peace talks through submission cannot withstand in my opinion the collision with the circumstances under which the commentated word fell. If Macron truly felt that the West (including France) was weaker than Russia and had to yield to anything, he would not effort to encourage Russia to have peace talks by promising to give it safety guarantees. On the contrary, he would alternatively ask Russia to give safety guarantees to the West or even Ukraine itself, suggesting that in return the West is able to make concessions. It was Macro who would ask the Russians to make concrete promises in this area. But it's the opposite. Macron's words clearly stem from a sense of strength and a feeling of superiority over Russia. And that sense was demonstrated. This explanation is besides confirmed by the fact that Macron and Biden after a joint meeting of December 1, 2022, they assured that they would proceed their cooperation in order to hold Russia accountable for its actions. This clearly indicates who feels stronger in the Western-Russia relation and who will draw consequences from whom. Words about safety guarantees for Russia fell only 2 days after the aforementioned message of both presidents. Therefore, it is not possible, for the purposes of its own opinion, to remove both declarations, to ignore the erstwhile on 1 December and to emphasize the importance of the warranty quote taken from the context. For then a false image arises. The facts are that on 1 December 2022 Macron and Biden declared cooperation to punish Russia for causing war. It was a bat. On the another hand, Marcon showed a carrot on December 3. If Russia enters peace talks, the stronger West can warrant the weaker and defeated by Ukrainians Russia's security. That's it. There was no mention of agreeing to the Kremal conditions or giving way to anything.
It would be different if a akin wording was utilized by Chancellor Scholz, for example. Germany bears the tremendous cost of its energy policy and of breaking cooperation with Russia. However, France is in a completely different position, it is the most politically independent country in the European Union, and Macron challenged the president of the United States – Donald Trump. While both gentlemen were wrestling in handshakes, Angela Merkel was publically insulted by D. Trump. Berlin has shown that despite its interests with Russia and its multi-annual political-energy strategy, it is incapable to show an assertive attitude towards the US. That's why even Putin stopped taking Germans seriously. On the another hand, the political position of Paris, the advanced independency of the state, and hence the large freedom of France in conducting global politics, means that Emmanuel Macron can afford to be attached to Trump, Biden and, also, due to the geographical distance between France and Russia, to Putin.
Is Putin answering?
It is besides worth looking at how the Kremlin decision-makers themselves perceive the attitude of France and the wider West. Vladimir Putin alternatively of sitting for talks – due to the fact that the West would give him safety guarantees (sic!) – responded with another massive rocket attack on Ukraine. The Russians do not at this point view the West (including France) as an highly weak collective entity at which the armed conflict can be unpunished. On the contrary, the communicative of the Kremel propaganda towards NATO and the West has become more fierce. While the West was previously portrayed as being “scathed” and quarrelled, the image now looks different. The American "imperium of evil" poses a deadly threat to Moscow, and Russia has hit a hard opponent. erstwhile Ukrainians make advancement on the front, Russian propaganda writes about the success of mercenaries (often Polish). This West does not let the undefeated Russian army in Ukraine to win. The West has become a dangerous and strong rival. And Russia, leading the "negotiation", responds to all available means of striking Ukrainians. What does that mean? Putin has no arguments to scope the United States, Britain or, for example, France. Instead, he bombards Ukrainian cities with rage, which his army is incapable to capture. It's a sign of powerlessness towards the West.
Conglomerate of interest
Of course, there are weak links in the western block that the Russians are trying to exploit. Like Hungary or even Germany. Although Berlin clearly supports Ukraine (as evidenced by the expanding real aid and supplies of equipment that had previously been blocked), Putin frequently elects Chancellor Olaf Scholz erstwhile he wants to communicate to NATO or cry for someone's sleeve (as it was on 2 December erstwhile Putin presented Scholz's "brief" conditions to sit for talks). However, Europe is trying hard and determined to cut off the Russian power cord and even Germany has set up their own LNG terminal in a fewer months to be able to take the gas by sea. The process of cutting off Russia is costly and painful for everyone, but erstwhile it does, there will be nothing left of Moscow's energy blackmail.
It is besides worth noting that in NATO itself, everyone cares for a good narrative. Whenever a Western politician is heard in Poland or even in the Baltic States, which could be read as a signal of a weakening determination to support Ukraine, the larum rises. You're right. This is what politics is all about. We should be delicate and even sensitive. However, policy is 1 thing, and a cool assessment of the actions and behaviour of the West (which continues to increase support for Ukraine, introduces fresh sanctions on Russia and besides communicates with Putin from the position of force) is the other.
However, in the context of real actions and events, fortunately the facts show that the West is expanding its force on Russia. The European Union is developing another package of sanctions, Germany is already sending dense equipment to Ukraine, and the United States continues to increase backing for Kiev while strengthening the alleged east flank of NATO.
Russia is hopeless and in the West they know it
On the basis of all this, it can be concluded that Russia has a policy to strangle a Russian bear. Unless he decides to capitulate and retreat from Ukraine. So it is simply a complete triumph and a warrant that Russia will cease to be a threat to anyone in the future. specified a strategy is surely based primarily on Americans, who now have the chance to destruct 1 of the 2 players opposed to American hegemony. It is besides worth remembering that, while Russia's real impact on France is negligible, there is nothing on the United States. These countries simply do not gotta negociate with Russia. There are Germans on the another pole, but as you can see, they are incapable to play assertively against Washington. And if they do not want to, they must go against their erstwhile multi-annual political and energy strategy, as well as economical interests (resigning inexpensive gas and oil). So I guess even in Berlin, it was realized who in this competition was in a losing position and how it could all end. Hence unwinding the tap with assistance to Ukraine, as well as investments in infrastructure giving independency from Russian natural materials.
Vladimir Putin sees this, so his determination to occupy Ukraine does not weaken. due to the fact that the power variant is the only Moscow left. But I have written about it many times in this blog. Second offensive on Kiev? The question is, when? Next year? A fewer years after a temporary ceasefire? Who knows.
Finally, it is worth adding that the Elysée Palace and Emmanuel Macron referred to the issue of the message quoted at the outset. The French president stated not to look into his words of declarations that were not there. According to the president's office, the French leader's opinion was ripped out of context. And in this peculiar case there are many arguments for admitting that this was the case because:
- Russia is failing in Ukraine and has not achieved its strategical objectives,
- The Russian army suffered crucial losses in the ensuing conflict,
- The war exposed all the weaknesses of the Russian army, which can no longer be feared as before,
- NATO has revived in terms of format and coherence, the members of the pact have started to think about security, increased their military spending, and NATO itself will grow by 2 more countries,
- NATO's military and political power relation – Russia has changed drastically to the disadvantage of the other,
- States neighbouring Russia invest in strike weapons, threatening Russian territory,
- The European Union imposes more and more painful sanctions on the Russian Federation,
- Even Germany began to aid Ukraine and build energy independency against Russian natural materials.
Of all the facts, there is simply no reason for NATO/West to be submissive to Putin. At the same time, Macro himself has additional reasons to feel assured and communicate with Putin from the position of force, due to the fact that France:
- was not and is not dependent on Russian gas and oil supply,
- relatively well endures the hard economical situation in Europe (nearly the lowest inflation),
- Is safe with the Russian threat,
- It itself has atomic potential.
Therefore, Macron's message that 1 should think about how he pointed out Putin's weakness alternatively than presenting submission on any plane. This is all the more certain in the context of the full communicative line conducted in fresh weeks (especially after the gathering with Biden on 1 December), and the fact that, in linguistic terms, "guarantee" is simply a domain stronger than the weaker/lost. So, in fact, you can even presume that Macron sees future peace talks (because they will yet come) as negotiations for the victorious West and Ukraine with the defeated Russia, which must be given safety guarantees in advance so that she is not afraid to enter into talks.
geopolitics, politics, economy, law, taxes – blog
Krzysztof Wojchal
