Macron’s Yerevan spectacle: bluff and clownery Expert opinions on Caliber.Az

Loud in rhetoric but, in essence, little more than political bluff — this is perhaps the most fitting way to describe French President Emmanuel Macron’s visit to Yerevan and the proudly proclaimed “Armenian-French unity.” It is obvious that Macron is using Armenia as a tool to advance France’s neocolonial policy in the South Caucasus. Understandably so — he needs to score points somewhere, given that, toward the twilight of his presidency, Macron has been confronted with record-low approval ratings in France, calling into question his legitimacy as a leader.

In his speech on May 10 during a meeting with families who had moved into the first residential complex in the city of Zangilan, President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev aptly described the actions of such political showmen with one precise word: “empty talk.”

“Certain foreign leaders who now visit Armenia and portray themselves as false heroes were the very same leaders in power in their own countries in 2020—they should have come then and stood up for Armenia. There is nothing but empty talk. That is all they do, which is why their support ratings in their own countries remain at 10–15 percent.”

So what does the expert and analytical community think about Macron’s visit to Armenia and the statements he made there? Foreign political analysts shared their views on the matter with Caliber.Az.

Thus, international affairs expert, Israeli journalist and publicist, and head of the International Relations Commission of the Journalists Association of Israel, Rostislav Goltsman, noted that “this is a sad story, although it could have been a very beautiful one.”

“What will Macron’s presidency be remembered for? For the fact that he — a kind of ‘leader of hopes’ who came to power neither as a right-wing nor a left-wing figure, but rather as someone perceived as relatable, handsome, and always smiling charmingly — ultimately became a disappointment and, most tragically, a laughing stock. Let me stress: any politician may be respected, loved, or hated, but he cannot become an object of ridicule, because such a president is a disgrace to his country and the ruin of its reputation. Especially if that state lays claim to imperial ambitions,” he said.

According to the expert, even Macron’s grandiose statements — for example, that France is prepared to assume the NATO role of the United States because it possesses nuclear weapons — do not diminish the fiasco of his visit to Armenia.

“Expectations of him after his election were enormous, yet he managed to deeply disappoint his supporters — in Lebanon, where French influence had traditionally been strong; in Ukraine, where there were plenty of loud statements but, apparently, the assistance Kyiv expected from Paris never arrived and is unlikely to arrive; and, of course, in Armenia, where France long attempted to sustain and encourage revanchist sentiments while supplying Yerevan with weapons.

However, last year’s agreements in Washington were formalised on the terms of Baku and Washington, while Macron’s policy had absolutely nothing to do with them. So the problem here is not so much what Macron did, but rather what he failed to do: he was unable to preserve his country’s reputation and, by turning himself into an object of ridicule, disappointed everyone — above all, I believe, the French themselves,” Goltsman stated.

Meanwhile, Russian political analyst and publicist Kirill Sitnikov believes that Macron’s visit to Armenia — which the French president attempted to present as some kind of bold move by a major European political leader — can hardly be viewed as such, since it effectively turned into a farce.

“What genuinely alarms many real politicians in Europe is his uncontrollable obsession with grand gestures that are utterly hollow in substance and fail to reflect the essence of European politics, including that of France itself. The ‘brotherly display’ between President Emmanuel Macron and Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan in Yerevan looked like a poorly staged performance, and even the signed documents failed to make much of an impression.

In reality, the strategic moment has already been missed. Since August 8, the leading political role in the South Caucasus on key issues — including the opening and unblocking of transport links — has been played by the United States, not Armenia’s so-called ‘elder sister,’ France.

Moreover, it has now become absolutely clear that the right to determine and choose Western partners — to grant them approval and a ‘green light’ in the South Caucasus — belongs exclusively to Baku, not to Armenia. And Paris has learned this lesson well. All of Yerevan’s attempts to push through and entrench French influence in the South Caucasus have led nowhere — Baku established its own rules of the game and played its hand on this issue exactly as it saw fit. And Yerevan accepted those terms.

That is precisely why the transport corridor through Armenia is now called the ‘Trump Road’ rather than the ‘Macron Road.’ Therefore, the appearance of the French president in the South Caucasus as a visiting dignitary is nothing more than the kind of symbolic gesture that Macron is so fond of — and nothing beyond that.

At present, the Fifth Republic is in no position to seriously engage in developing ‘strategic relations with Yerevan,’ no matter how impressive the signed documents may appear. Analysts describe the country’s economic situation as extremely difficult, and Paris has no intention of cooperating with Armenia or boosting its economy through French investments.

Macron is far too preoccupied with his domestic approval ratings and is prepared only for short-term, flashy gestures rather than the development of large-scale, long-term economic projects with Yerevan,” Sitnikov concluded.