Two months before the presidential election in France, Emmanuel Macron decided to focus efforts on a crisis more than 2,000 kilometers away from his country, the conflict that pits Russia against Western powers over fears of an invasion by Ukraine.
Without Angela Merkel at the helm of Germany, Vladimir Putin’s closest interlocutor in the 16 years the two presidents have been in power, it was up to the French president to seek to assume the role of spokesperson for Western European interests in talks in Moscow on Monday. (7), and Kiev, this Tuesday (8).
His attempt to cash in on international projection by adopting the role of mediator of the crisis, on the eve of running for a second term – he leads the polls, with about 25% of the voting intentions against 18% of the second place, Marine Le Pen – , runs counter to the more aggressive rhetoric of US President Joe Biden.
After all, France should be more restrained than the United States, since a war on the continent would put the European Union’s security architecture in check, generate a strong economic impact and provoke a new refugee crisis, says Hussein Kalout, researcher and adviser. Cebri (Brazilian Center for International Relations).
US government reports estimate that a conflict in Ukraine could lead to the displacement of up to 5 million people to Europe from Poland.
It is not the first time that Macron has advocated for Europe to have an independent position from the White House. Alongside Merkel herself, last June he argued that the EU should maintain an autonomous policy towards China and not automatically align itself with the Americans.
“A vacuum has been created with the departure of Angela Merkel. Olaf Scholz [novo premiê alemão] does not have the same experience, and Germany is in a slightly more uncomfortable situation in this crisis, due to the extensive economic relationship and energy dependence [da Rússia]”, says Oliver Stuenkel, from Fundação Getúlio Vargas (FGV).
“The articulation of a project of greater autonomy in geopolitical terms of the European Union is a very important theme for Macron. So he clearly projects himself as an architect of a new phase of the bloc on the international stage.”
Berlin, moreover, maintains a leading role as it is the bloc’s main economy, but Jean-Marie Guéhenno, from Columbia University, points out that the French leader’s recent prominence in the negotiations is influenced by the fact that France occupies the rotating presidency of the European Council and need to mobilize the institution. “If it’s possible to have not just two, but several strong leaders in the European Union, that will make the bloc stronger.”
For French analysts, more than an attempt to be a new Merkel, Macron uses his relationship history. “He is one of the only European leaders who has been in more frequent and regular contact with Putin in recent years,” says Marie Dumoulin, director of the Wider Europe program at ECFR. “So, in a situation where he feels he needs to speak directly to Russian, he uses that contact to make a European voice heard.”
The French president was the first major power chief Putin has personally received since tensions on the Ukrainian border erupted late last year.
The rapprochement between the two comes since the Frenchman took office in 2017, when he received the Russian at the Castle of Versailles. The following year, on the day of the World Cup final in Russia (won by France over Croatia), they met once again and promised to deepen ties.
The most important meeting took place in August 2019, in France, to discuss the crises in Syria and Ukraine. The result, however, was the opposite of what was expected, and the relationship between the two came to be viewed with some suspicion by other heads of state – Macron’s strategies had not been discussed before with other Europeans.
Michel Duclos, a diplomat and special adviser on geopolitics at the Montaigne Institute think tank, defines the exchanges of the two leaders as a “failure relationship”. In his book “La France dans le Bouleversement du Monde” (France in the upheaval of the world), released last year, he pointed out that the more talks with Putin seemed to bear fruit, the more the French insisted on keeping them.
It amazes Paris that the same is happening now, since, despite efforts in Eastern Europe, Macron has not yet come out with anything that could be called a diplomatic victory or any concrete guarantee that there will be no conflict. THE leaf Duclos points out that circumstances have changed. “In a way, Putin needs a little Macron today; someone who wants to avoid war and is his interlocutor in the West.”
In 2008, with the invasion of Georgia, it was also up to the French president at the time, Nicolas Sarkozy, to lead the negotiations. “Both are very active, dynamic, energetic and have a more personal relationship with Putin,” says Guéhenno. At the time, however, the Americans were not as present as they are now, and Sarkozy would not face an election in a few months – although he has not yet officially launched his candidacy, Macron is expected to seek re-election.
Marie Dumoulin recalls that foreign policy is not among the most relevant issues for French voters, but the Ukraine issue has already reached the campaign, with presidential candidates expressing themselves about the crisis and how they would deal with it differently.
In an interview with France Inter, the far-right Eric Zemmour said that Macron should negotiate with the Russians first and that Putin no longer trusts the French. The candidate also defends a peaceful agreement, which he would give to the Russian, by guaranteeing that Ukraine is not part of NATO. Right-wing Valérie Pécresse, in an interview with France 5, proposed a European conference to create a pan-European security council, leaving the US to one side.
For Kalout, from Cebri, the calculation of how the economic impacts in France of a conflict in Ukraine could harm the first place in the polls weighs on Macron’s actions.
There are, even so, risks, such as not achieving the expected results of diplomatic initiatives and a war breaking out, which would generate a credibility crisis for the president, taken advantage of by his opponents. On the other hand, if he succeeds, he can take credit for avoiding the conflict. “But I think that could be just a few percentage points,” says Dumoulin.
