Vers la guerre ?
Although this book, signed by the French Minister for Defence, does not really answer the question – although who can, with any certainty? – it certainly highlights what a dangerous place the world in which we live has become. It also stresses the need for France – but this also applies to all other European countries – to take their responsibilities in terms of rearmament and preparing society as a whole for the many threats it faces, which are complex and hybrid in nature while having the annoying tendency to build up in our environment. The analysis carried out by the French Minister is unquestionably lucid, but is also greatly informed by Sébastien Lecornu’s personality. It has some Gaullist notes and a number of quotations from General De Gaulle and his minister Pierre Messmer, who, in the author’s very clear view, obviously still have an answer for everything. This was not, however, prevent Lecornu from expressing his unflagging loyalty to President Emmanuel Macron and singing the praises of the results of all his actions since 2017 and those to which he personally contributed since taking up position in 2022. An exercise in “all’s fair in love and war”, some will say; always handy when it comes to keeping hold of one’s portfolio…
Is it, then, worthy of the place awarded to it in this section? Yes. First of all because the essay is a very useful reflection of the mindset within the microcosm of French defence, including the role it sees for NATO, the only organisation within which one can bump into Lecornu relatively often. And then, in the absence of any reference to any kind of European defence or the object, ill-defined as it still is, the European Defence Union, to the extent that it raises serious questions about the true potential of the ‘White Paper’ to be presented by the new Commissioner for Defence, Andrius Kubilius, and High Representative Kaja Kallas, within the next two months.
“The financial commitment of the State has been […] considerable since the election of Emanuel Macron; between 2017 and 2030, we will have scheduled for our defence budget to be doubled from 32 billion euros to 67 billion euros. But the truth is that we senior politicians cannot agree amongst ourselves on how we are to do this!”, Lecornu starts by observing (our translation throughout). He goes on to add that “our place within NATO – over and above our membership of the organisation – is by no means a matter of consensus. European industrial operations, as necessary as they may be in certain cases, for instance with space exploration and the Ariane rocket, are frequently targeted by attacks in principle”.
“In addition to simply debating the 2% of GDP rule that every member country of the Alliance is supposed to earmark for its defence expenditure [France barely achieved this in 2024: Ed], the question is still that of making specific forces available that might participate in this deterrence and defence mission”, the Minister explains, proudly reporting that 2000 French soldiers are involved in NATO operations on the eastern flank. It is worth pointing out that this contribution is fairly small given the geographical scope and the contributions of the other allies.
“I firmly believe, as my team does likewise, that space is both a condition of operations – for intelligence and telecommunications – and a theatre of battle in its own right”, the author writes, adding that “having long been on the outside of direct confrontation, including during the Cold War, when a modus vivendi was found between East and West, in recent years we have seen the deployment of uninhibited hostile strategies which international law appears powerless to do anything about. On this matter, American revelations about a potential Russian nuclear space programme aiming to destroy all satellites on a given orbit must be taken seriously. More conventionally, the capability to attack satellites is developing at a dizzying speed and there will soon be two categories of players in space: those who are able to defend themselves, including physically, and those who remain vulnerable. Those who live on our planet will certainly experience actions are like something out of ‘Star Wars’. As for the capabilities that other powers are setting in place, this immediately raises the question of our own offensive programmes and no means should be excluded from our reflections in principle. The success in 2019 of the attempt to destroy a satellite by ballistic means carried out by our Indian partner should at least prompt us start asking questions”. Lecornu adds that “France [or Europe, depending on one’s point of view: Ed] is the opportunity to have a world-beating satellite industry, with [the Franco-Italian] Thales Alenia Space and Airbus Defence and Space [division of the European group Airbus, which is headquartered in Munich], as the coexistence of these two players is not without the effect of creating a few export difficulties”.
The Minister also delivers an honest recognition of the fact that “although the military programming laws 2019-2025 and 2024-2030 start to correct the problem […], This effort will not be enough to tackle the challenges surrounding the same issue: our strategic depth”. He lists the questions at hand: “what would be our endurance in a conflict of high to low intensity? Can we handle more than one crisis at the same time? What can we do on our own, and what can we take on in the event that an American administration decides to step back or withdraw altogether from NATO and therefore the European continent? What breakthrough technologies are likely to cause a tactical or strategic breakthrough that could threaten our security?” These are all questions that every senior European politician should be asking, along with ones about interoperability and logistical chains.
A European preference? “As Emmanuel Macron reiterated in his speech at the Sorbonne, we must work to bring about a sharp reduction in extra-European materials procurement by members of the European Union, when European – and, in particular, French – solutions exist in almost all segments. No European Union funding, moreover, should go to any supplier outside Europe. Should we not ramp up customs duty on military equipment entering Europe? That money could go to pay for the military defence of the states… In any event, France must lead this common-sense battle”. In its own interests, of course; the problem is that its partners realise that as well!
In another touch of honesty, he writes that “for a long time, there has been a gulf between the stated defence ambitions of the European continent and the reality of the resources actually earmarked for it. The French Presidency [of the Council] of the European Union of 2022 and its ‘Versailles agenda’ helped to reduce this gap by clarifying our diplomatic objectives. The war in Ukraine and the awakening of NATO from its ‘coma’ took care of the rest, in other words reinvesting militarily in Europe, particularly the European states on the eastern fringes and which are directly under the Russian threat. But this is only a starting point, the deployment of a handful of battlegroups will not be enough and the countries of Eastern Europe must make considerable efforts to modernise their armies and their doctrine. We are currently, over time, to deploy several French brigades and heavy weaponry in the end of actual or potential conflict with Russia. This can also be coordinated with the Eastern European countries concerned: although we need to be ready to engage fully in the event of crisis, it is not our job to supplement Romania’s weaponry in its missions”.
“I am undoubtably one of the most ‘sovereignist’ members of the presidential majority and I always take it with a pinch of salt when I hear certain types of blissfully naive European discourse, which seems both sympathetic and entirely unrealistic”, Lecornu confesses. He goes on to add that he “in no way doubts the absolute need to develop military cooperation between European countries. It is our history, this cooperation, which may be to our advantage and, when the interests of every country are respected, it works”.
He goes on to state that “our cooperation in defence matters with neighbouring states is a necessity, not against NATO or its role, but in addition to these. We must also work on maintaining our security relationship with Great Britain, a country whose army model is similar to our own, with a common culture, external operations and shared threats, for instance in the maritime field or terrorism. Despite Brexit – or the AUKUS alliance [between the United States, the UK and Australia: Ed] -, we must in future make every effort to bring the ‘Entente cordiale’ to life, whatever the cost, more specifically in the field of defence with the Lancaster House agreements. My former opposite number, Ben Wallace, who was then the Conservative Defence Secretary, was a reliable ally in this area. Kier Starmer’s new Labour government and the new Defence Secretary, John Healey, wish to continue down this road. This is an opportunity”.
In passing, it is worth highlighting the very friendly portrait the French minister draws of his German counterpart, Boris Pistorius: “a very likeable individual, a committed European, who is particularly popular in opinion polls in his country, Boris is a departure from traditional German opinion. For the last 18 months, he has made many declarations on the fact that war with Russia is unavoidable. He talks freely about the possibility of bringing back military service and has fought hard for a higher defence budget, but not one that will serve German interests alone. Basically, although he shares the pacifist beliefs his country currently embraces, the least we can say is that Germany has a defence minister who is quite clear about the realities of the times and the threats it holds”.
“Defence is – and must remain – a sovereign competence of each member state. Even so, we have a collective duty to develop our industrial defence capacity”, the French minister stresses, adding that “Europe is a common market, sharing environmental, labour organisation and capital management rules. Recent times will have been marked by a very healthy change. Just two years ago, there were many plans in Brussels aiming to hinder the financing of the defence industries via taxonomy. The, political context reawaken comments on this matter, which has had the effect of shelving these unfortunate initiatives. But here again, this was a wake-up call. Recent times have even seen much progress under European Commissioner Thierry Breton”. He proceeds with scattergun praise of the European Defence Fund and the missions production instrument ASAP, (deliberately?) leaving out EDIRPA (equipment acquisitions) and the embryonic EDIP industrial programme.
The conclusion is: “we are no longer at peace […]. Yes, Russia is involved in a confrontation with Europe and this has already started. This has been the only aggression of its kind in more than 30 years, it is complex and does not have the characteristics of classical welfare. However, it is a form of war”, Lecornu writes, adding that “the economic model and interdependencies accompanying them have changed and the mastery of technology is now more spread out across the planet. China is no longer the China of the 1960s, or even the China of the 1990s. The countries of the South are no longer emerging, but have become established economic and military powers to be reckoned with, such as India or Brazil. The dynamics in the Near and Middle East are these days organise more around Iran, far from European and American centres. As for multilateral diplomacy, the United Nations and the need, it is struggling to produce its effects is it is not simply sideline. These observations therefore inquire us not only to rearm in the… meaning of the word, but also to look differently at the question of our collective security”. In the face of “hybrid, insidious [threats], using democratic channels and affecting the lives of civilian populations more”, Lecornu questions that need to “make haste with the preparation of society as a whole”, which hints at the report commissioned by the President of the European Commission from the former Finnish president Sauli Niinistö, although the author does not mention it. He stresses repeatedly that rearmament “is only just beginning” and that “we need to make many efforts over time”. (Olivier Jehin)
Sébastien Lecornu. Vers la guerre ? La France face au réarmement du monde (available in French only). Plon. ISBN: 978-2-2593-2065-8. 286 pages. €20,00