Lova Rinel, a specialist in nuclear deterrence, is an associate researcher at the Foundation for Strategic Research.
To discover
PODCAST - Listen to the club Le Club Le Figaro Idées with Eugénie Bastié
LE FIGARO. - What lessons can be learned from Emmanuel Macron's intervention this Thursday?
Lova RINEL. -
The fundamental lesson of this interview is that the president's action can be the awakening, or the French start to relearn the international balance of power.
But the real one, the one which punctuates the tensions. We see a fairly serene president, sure of his position and the reasons which push him to maintain this posture.
If we focus on the president's words, we understand that he is saying nothing other than what several defense and deterrence experts have been explaining since the start of the conflict:
We are facing a war wanted by Russia which goes beyond a bilateral conflict.
It is colonial and hegemonic and it will not stop at the Ukrainian territories.
The other lesson, and it is certainly the strongest, is that France is one of the keys to this conflict.
The French president's ability to manage over the coming months (by 2026) the balance of power with an ally like the United States, which seems to be moving towards the Russian cause, may be decisive for Europe.
Deterrence allows you and me, and everyone on the territory to live in security without going through the teaching of the armies.
Lova Rinel
In short and to put it more simply, the other lesson that we can draw is that France is playing its geopolitical card.
The responsibility and the challenge of carrying a message other than that of the Russians and the Americans rests today on France.
In addition, President Emmanuel Macron does nothing other than respect the exegesis of our doctrine: strategic independence.
He said this on Thursday evening, which is very positive and even reassuring.
Maintaining this freedom of action will be decisive for France.
“
Russia must not and cannot win this war,” insisted the head of state, believing that the security of France and Europe is at stake in Ukraine.
Is the Head of State trying to make the French aware of the danger weighing on Europe, and therefore on them, so that they support his action?
France lives in a world preserved from any conflict on its territory thanks to its deterrence since the 1960s. By conflict, I mean so-called high-intensity wars requiring a call for conscription;
which also partly explains France's choice to leave military service.
Also read: Nicolas Tenzer: “The question of evil is a gateway to strategic analysis”
Our strategic choices for territorial defense have made it possible to reduce our recruitment needs, thanks to our deterrence.
It allows you and me, and all the people on the territory to live in security without going through the training of the armies.
One of the direct consequences of the end of military service (1996) is that France based its defense essentially on deterrence by having in addition a land army present on OPEX.
The vigipirate plan came to remind the French that our military does exist and that it protects our territory but in reality, we have not been educated for war.
This is a good thing in itself, but it sets the limit to the understanding of a limited collective imagination on things of the danger of confrontation.
Russia, by invading Ukraine and threatening the West with a nuclear attack, has shattered this ideal.
The president has just reminded us of this harsh reality.
Deterrence is the blurring of vital interests;
we do not define them, otherwise we lose the advantage of negotiation, but it is the certainty of the nuclear response in the event of an attack on our vital interests.
Lova Rinel
We must also understand that this serenity is also valid in Europe, certainly the nuclear umbrella exists, but it is fragile.
It is already in the hands of the Americans, who let us remember, if Donald Trump wins the next elections poses uncertainty as to the capacity of the USA to enforce article 5 of the NATO Charter (collective defense) .
The doubt is sincerely raised given the various comments made by Donald Trump which suggest that if he wins he will withdraw all support for Ukraine and will not engage the American army in a conflict with Russia.
Now is France in danger if Ukraine loses this war?
The question is all the more important as it is broader.
Indeed, it is not France but all of Europe that would be in danger and the Baltic States continue to alert us on the subject.
Opinions differ in France, but in Europe, the consensus is more widespread.
I therefore rephrase, not only France would be in danger in the event of Russia's victory in the integrity of its territory and its interests but all of Europe and this is an opinion shared by European states.
Also read: “The president is frightening”, he is “blowing on the embers”… The oppositions denounce Macron’s war-mongering speech
And moreover the journalists have rightly mentioned it, without being in a high intensity conflict with Russia, the latter has continued to attack us since 2017 with destabilizing attacks which also poses one of the new faces of confrontation with a power: interference, disinformation, cyber raids... This is obviously without taking into account the various attacks on our model of society, the defense of the LGBT community and individual freedoms which seem to be one of the Vladimir Putin's justifications for the attacks he sends in a roundabout way without ever really taking responsibility for them.
Wagner is just one example among many.
Emmanuel Macron assured that nuclear weapons “give the French security” against Russia. Is Emmanuel Macron trying to maintain vagueness? Should we interpret them as a desire to maintain a standoff against Putin? For what purpose?
Deterrence is the blurring of vital interests;
we do not define them, otherwise we lose the advantage of negotiation, but it is the certainty of the nuclear response in the event of an attack on our vital interests.
This is also the heart of the interview on the president's deterrence on Thursday.
France was too keen to find a solution through diplomacy to “calm” the Russians, but it came up against a wall of aggression and blackmail that was unacceptable to the Ukrainians.
Today, we are very far from nuclear danger.
Lova Rinel
The objective of deterrence is indeed to put nuclear weapons on the table.
Here it is Russia which imposed it in this conflict (24 times since 2022) to prevent any discussion.
France poses another balance of power, using nuclear weapons as a tool for strategic dialogue, it pushes Russia to negotiate.
The deterrence used by France is a path back to discussion and not to an increase in tensions.
The ball is in Russia's court; it must decide whether it accepts the hand extended to it to find an end to this conflict.
We have a president who has perhaps understood the only way to talk to Vladimir Putin, force.
It's destabilizing here, but it's respected in Russia, and that's the main thing.
With this type of statement, are we not risking a slippage involving nuclear deterrence?
Deterrence has been in place since 1960 (blue jerboa first French attempt), it is a weapon of non-use to encourage them to give up attacking us.
This is the definition of deterrence, and unless I'm mistaken, France has not been attacked with a nuclear weapon by Russia, so at this point it works.
The day the weapon is used is mechanically the end and failure of deterrence.
Today, we are very far from nuclear danger.
The French nuclear deterrent is credible in the eyes of everyone, even the Russians and President Putin can speak of the superiority of its weapons, the fact remains that the equalizing force of the atom is the fact that a strategic atomic weapon like ours cause irreversible destruction to Russia, so there is no interest for them or for us to get to that point.
But it is up to Vladimir Putin to come down on the pressure and that is the message that France is sending him.
For the first time, the Russians are showing significant resistance, I believe on the contrary that it is the beginning, certainly of a tension, but an obligatory moment to arrive at something where we French guarantee our security, just like the Europeans .