Europe unmoved by Macron’s “defender of Europe” bluff Expert opinions on Caliber.Az

French President Emmanuel Macron’s grandiose and self-proclaimed role as Europe’s "defender" has once again fallen flat. His latest attempt to position France as the continent’s ultimate protector—going so far as to suggest using its nuclear arsenal in defence of European NATO allies—was met with skepticism. Many European member states simply do not believe that France would follow through on such a commitment if war were to break out.

But how do political analysts and experts view Macron’s latest initiative and his repeated, yet unsuccessful, efforts to establish himself as Europe’s leader? To gain insight, a Caliber.Az correspondent spoke with foreign political analysts.

Israeli political analyst and publicist Rostislav Goltzman, head of the international relations commission of the Israel Journalists Union, is convinced that Macron did not perceive Trump's words as a threat but rather as an unexpected opportunity. According to him, this is hardly surprising given Macron's catastrophically low approval rating at home.

"Essentially, Trump's idea is nothing new: if you want protection, you have to pay for it. The United States has been ensuring Europe's security for nearly a century—first during World War II, then through the Marshall Plan, and later via NATO. Yes, European countries have their own armies, and some even possess nuclear weapons, but it was the presence of American troops that guaranteed stability in the face of the Soviet and later Russian threat.

Trump has urged Europe to make a choice: either pay for security or rely on its own strength. Many European leaders took this poorly, but Macron saw an opportunity. He declared that France was ready to take on leadership, protect Europe under its 'nuclear umbrella,' and become a new guarantor of security. However, reality is far more complex. If France were truly capable of replacing the U.S. in this regard, there would be no need to convince Volodymyr Zelenskyy that Europe could serve as a reliable guarantor for Ukraine.

In fact, Zelenskyy himself has acknowledged that without the U.S., a peaceful resolution is impossible. He once again turned to Washington, stating that Ukraine is ready to work ‘under the leadership’ of the American president. This statement sounds rather ambiguous, especially from the perspective of sovereignty.

Ultimately, Macron’s grand declarations say more about his inflated ego than about any real shift in the balance of power. If France were truly capable of guaranteeing Europe's security, there would be no need to push the leader of a war-torn country into making such statements. But delivering eloquent speeches and making an impression—that is something Macron excels at. However, this time, it came across as sheer buffoonery and farce—everyone could see that behind his words lay complete helplessness when it came to real action," Goltzman noted.

According to Kazakh political scientist and candidate of political sciences Sharip Ishmukhamedov, Macron’s recent speech on national television, where he accused Russia of intending to expand its use of nuclear weapons and offered security guarantees for Europe on behalf of France as the EU's sole nuclear power, has sparked a great deal of reaction. Some saw it as a sign that he would finally take on leadership in Europe, becoming a political and military leader, a new ideologist of reforms. However, the reality is that Macron is not the person who can be trusted on these matters.

"He is a vivid example of a populist politician who makes loud statements to attract attention and gain media effect against the backdrop of Europe’s serious security challenges. But his words often don't align with his actions. Moreover, his rhetoric does not contribute to a peaceful resolution of the conflict; rather, it complicates the situation and hinders those who should be making tough decisions—the president of Ukraine, the Ukrainian people, and the leaders of the U.S. and EU.

Look at his political history. He came to power as a socialist, promising to protect the rights of workers and French companies, but instead allowed increased competition from Eastern European firms and failed with pension reform, putting French workers' rights at risk. His diplomatic strategy before the full-scale war in 2022 also proved unsuccessful—Macron hoped that his personal contacts with Putin would help prevent the conflict, convincing all of Europe of this false narrative, but it turned out to be an illusion. And now we are seeing the same situation repeat itself," the political scientist noted.

According to him, Macron's policy in Africa has also been a failure. Populist approaches led to French troops and businesses being forced to leave several countries, jeopardizing France's long-term investments in the region.

"Another example is his intervention in the South Caucasus situation—he declared Azerbaijan the 'aggressor' in the conflict with Armenia. Instead of facilitating a peaceful resolution, Macron only deepened the mistrust between the parties and hindered the negotiation process.

Given this, it’s unrealistic to expect that his current statements about the war in Ukraine or European security will lead to real results. France will not be able to replace the U.S. on European defense matters, and Ukraine risks becoming a hostage to Macron's loud but empty words. At this point, I cannot point to a single example where his words have matched real outcomes," Ishmukhamedov concluded.