Чем Макрон заслужил одобрение Лаврова
How Macron has earned Lavrov's approval
Washington knows Paris is an unreliable ally in confronting Russia
17 March 2022, 14:56 Text:
Stanislav Borzyakov
According to the Russian foreign minister, the French president is the only European leader who is trying to resist Washington's hegemony and has not yet "gone under" the US. What can Sergei Lavrov's assessment have to do with the fact that Emmanuel Macron is actively engaged in an economic war with Russia, but calls the Kremlin two or three times a week?
"A peace order based on the rules the US writes is already ready to be accepted in any form by Europe. In fact, the only one left is Emmanuel Macron, who keeps mentioning the need for strategic autonomy for the EU. The rest of the countries of the European Union have already fallen under the U.S.'.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov expressed this opinion in an interview with RBK, which is atypical of the minister. It is not in the spirit of Lavrov and Russian diplomacy in general to single out certain Western leaders personally, especially given that they all seem to be waging the same economic war against Russia. As if they were all waging the same economic war against Russia.
Perhaps Lavrov has a personal sympathy for the French president (why not: Macron pursues a far more diverse foreign policy than was expected of the "Rothschild man"). But Paris and "the rest of the West" are really "two big differences" if one knows what one is trying to hide from the general public.
Lavrov certainly knows. And to confirm his assessment of Macronov's resistance, it is better to look at France not through the eyes of the Russians but through the eyes of those very Americans. From the American point of view, the French are a very bad ally. Especially in the case of confrontation with Russia.
The need for "strategic autonomy" of the EU from the U.S. has been mentioned many times by Macron himself, and in the same words as Lavrov now. The last time he did so publicly was relatively recently - at a meeting with Atlantic Council experts on February 4. According to the French president, such autonomy would correct "distortions in the transatlantic relations" and reduce Europe's dependence on American weapons (read: let them buy French ones).
At the same time Macron reiterated that "the strategic dialogue with Moscow has no alternatives". He is, in principle, fond of speculating aloud in moments of heartwarming tide about a special relationship with Russia and "the great European nation, the Russians", but, as we know, deeds - including what some US commentators call "dirty deals" - are far more important than words.
During the first, Crimean-Donbass sanctions wave of 2014, the story was widely discussed when Paris, under US pressure, refused to supply Moscow with Mistral-type helicopter carriers, returning the advance payment. It had to be persuaded because the restrictions then imposed by both America and Europe included a ban on the supply of arms and other military and dual-use products to Russia under newly concluded contracts, and the Mistrals contract had been concluded earlier.
The whole world knew about the scandal, but not many knew that other military supplies from France to Russia continued. According to the French publication Disclose, between 2015 and 2020, the French sent us more than 150 million euros worth of military developments, including infrared detectors for combat aircraft and thermal imagers for tanks. And the main beneficiaries were Thales and Safran, where the French state is the main shareholder. Macron has already been forced to admit that all this is the truth.
Now of course such a thing is not possible, even European yoghurt and cat food producers are now refusing to supply Russia. European, but not French again for some reason. The Swedish Ikea is closed in Russia, and the French Leroy Merlin is working as it used to.
According to the newspaper Le Figaro, after the start of the Russian Armed Forces' special operation in Ukraine, Macron met with 15 representatives of major French businesses, advising them not to rush into "kenseling" and not to withdraw from the Russian market just yet. This was advised by the same man who is positioning himself as co-author of the economic pressure on Russia.
This is roughly why the French are disliked, and the Americans especially. For always trying to accommodate their financial and industrial interest and provide for a special way, for being able to screw over an ally unexpectedly and showing off for no good reason.
That was the case during the Second World War, when Washington tried to find a less opinionated leader than General Charles de Gaulle for the French resistance.
So it was in the Cold War, when the same De Gaulle pulled France out of NATO even though it had already gone through a wholesale American buyout of European sovereignty - the Marshall Plan.
This was the case with the US-led coalition attack on Iraq, which Paris categorically condemned as an adventure, and political analysts suddenly started discussing the emergence of a new anti-American axis: Paris-Berlin-Moscow.
The relationship between the Elysée Palace and the Kremlin - a strategic adversary of the White House - is indeed special. It was so under De Gaulle and remains so after him.
In the early 1950s and late 1960s, it was generally believed in Washington and London that power in France would inevitably pass to the Communists.
Paris is almost always a headache for the US. It is easy to imagine how, after the creation of the anti-Chinese bloc AUKUS, under which the Anglo-Saxons "cheated" the French out of a fat contract to build nuclear submarines for Australia, the old-timers of the State Department rubbed their hands maliciously - this is for you, sir, for all your previous "tricks".
By and large, however, Americans believe that France is "no longer the type" to fully withdraw from American tutelage. Furthermore, although not too few Frenchmen (presidential candidate Eric Zemmour is their spokesman) have dreams of a new Russo-French alliance, it is not a worthy ally whom even the Americans are wolfing down, despite their "community of values", which both Biden and Macron unreservedly acknowledge.
Teasing the latter, however, by brushing aside the national ego of the French nation, does seem useful. Whether now or not France is the "one", but it still has the biggest armed forces in the EU (in NATO it is second to the USA and Turkey) and the only one in the European Union which possesses nuclear weapons and strategic territories in three oceans - from Guiana in South America to New Caledonia in Oceania.
With the right firepower, all this guarantees a claim to unambiguous leadership of the united army of the European Union, the appearance of which has long been talked about, but all the time something gets in the way, not excluding the Americans.
If Macron re-elects to the presidency this spring (and he certainly will), he has promised to get down to creating this army, and then disagreements between Paris and Washington will enter a new level of "intolerability" for the latter.
If so, why shouldn't Minister Lavrov do just that - single out Macron as the only one who can stand up to the Americans, in the expectation that the trademark national pride will finally kick in and the French will actually dare to do something substantial beyond furtive handshakes with the Russians under the lid of the negotiating table. The more cracks and contradictions in the Western bloc, the better for us.
