Is France Preparing for War?

France (Image: Pixabay)

By Air Cmde TK Chatterjee(retd)

The first sign that a country is contemplating entering an active conflict beyond its shores is when the country’s political leadership starts to justify to its own people and its allies the grounds for which entering the conflict is necessary or inescapable.

The second sign is when the industries that will support the war effort of the nation are asked to change gears and increase their outputs markedly.

The third sign is when the armed forces leadership echoes the call of the political leadership and goes public with its wholehearted support for the cause.

All three signs are visible in France.

In June 2022, during Eurosatory, a land-based armament exhibition held in Paris, President Macron first indicated that France should enter “war economy” mode. This was a few months after Russian “special operations” in Ukraine had begun. Since then, the President has been very vocal in the criticism of Russian aggression and has also been not kind to NATO and its doctrine of support to allies or would-be allies. He actively advocated an independent European defence and security mechanism without any dependence on the USA. Though as per him, the war in Ukraine did finally manage to inject some life into a “brain-dead” NATO but not enough. Most recently he invited criticism to himself for stating that European boots on the ground in Ukraine are inescapable. Germany and Italy opposed the idea vociferously. But a sneaking suspicion is that Poland will be in step with France if that indeed happens, for if Ukraine falls the Russians will be on the Polish border. The French defence minister advised the industrial and R&D apparatus of France to gear up for a “major geopolitical shift” in Europe.

Those companies which deal in civil as well as defence have been asked to prioritise defence. The defence outlay of the country has increased from 38 billion in 2015 to 48 billion Euros in 2022, the highest spender of Europe in the sector. The French defence sector has received 30 billion in orders, which will trickle through all the layers of the sector, helping them to increase their outputs.

The French Chef d’État-Major des Armées [CEMA] was recently reported in a front-page column that the French strategic and conventional forces were ready for any eventualities.

Macron is perhaps the only European leader who is reading the foreseeable future correctly. And is bold enough to say it in public. Wars cannot be fought by any nation that is fully dependent on hardware and ammunition supplies from other countries. Even a defensive war is not possible let alone an intense and offensive war. All supporting countries and their governments, despite their goodwill, have their own political compulsions, which they cannot ignore. Moreover, in a long-drawn war, the governments of the allies can change along with their political ethos. Consider the situation if, in 2025, France gets a right-wing government that is known as Russian sympathisers, the USA gets a government led by the Republicans, Italy is already right-wing and pro-Russia, Germany is non-committal about active engagement beyond its Leopard tanks and no one expects the UK to go against the wishes of the Americans… What then happens to Ukraine?

But was all this war-mongering necessary?

I am not going too far in history to condemn the unwarranted expansion of NATO when no one was actually threatening the European mainland or why the world stood by and watched when Crimea was annexed by Russia. Even after the Russian aggression started and the Russian forces headed for Kyiv to dislodge the “neo-Nazi” regime but had to withdraw due to fierce Ukrainian opposition, effective mediation could have resulted in a negotiated settlement. Failure of the blitzkrieg to capture Kyiv made the Russian leadership realise that getting the whole of Ukraine was a pipe dream and they agreed to come to the discussion table within days of the beginning of the campaign. The initial demands of either side were too unrealistic to meet. Ukraine’s demand for an iron-clad security guarantee from its Western allies against any future attack by Russia was also not endorsed by the NATO member states. But later, after many rounds of in-person and virtual meetings, in Istanbul for the first time, both sides exchanged drafts and came nearly to an agreement. The Russians were willing to ceasefire in exchange for Ukraine’s assurance of absolute neutrality, not joining NATO, and not allowing NATO troops or weapon systems on its soil. Foreign Affairs in its article ‘The Talks That Could Have Ended the War in Ukraine’ states that Russia was not against Ukraine joining the EU, on the contrary was willing to ‘facilitate’ its joining the EU. But as the war progressed, certain incidents like the massacre at Bucha, the hubristic feeling after being able to thwart the initial Russian advance to Kyiv that the war could be won, and the Russian demand for reduced size and structure of the Ukrainian forces post the agreement hardened the Ukrainian stance. But even then, the Russians had realized that invading Ukraine was a misadventure and hence a negotiated settlement was possible for them.

But this is where the story takes a turn when the Western allies advised Ukraine to continue the war because they felt that Russia could be defeated with the combined effect of economic sanctions and the Ukrainian war effort, supported by Western hardware. As a representative of the West, Boris Johnson visited Kyiv and effectively spiked the treaty. This fact was also mentioned by Putin in his interview with Tucker Carlson.

As it stands today, Putin says he is agreeable to a negotiated settlement but does not know who to negotiate with! Today TASS reports that Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said that Russia is convinced that the Special Operations in Ukraine are no longer needed, and they are willing to negotiate but not with Zelensky as it would lead nowhere. On the other hand, the US government has cleared a huge amount as military aid to Ukraine, thereby signaling that the war will continue.

History has proven that starting a war is easy, but ending it is not. This is more so when many influencers are involved with varied vested interests. Ukraine is perhaps the glowing example of a lack of vision, statesmanship, and war craft on the part of many, including the Ukrainian leadership. So, the war will continue and inevitably escalate due to miscalculations of somebody sometime somewhere in the not-so-distant future.

So, if France is shifting gears to a ‘war economy’ mode, it is doing nothing wrong.

The author is an Indian Air Force Veteran.

Disclaimer: Views expressed are personal and do not reflect the official position or policy of Financial Express Online. Reproducing this content without permission is prohibited.