“An existential challenge for the EU.” Meeting in an extraordinary council this March 6, the European Union adopted the plan “Rearmer Europe” and its envelope of 800 billion euros. This sum must allow the strengthening of the defense capacities of the twenty-seven, and ultimately benefit Ukraine. For the first time in years, Europeans have embarked on intense military discussions, ranging from financial support to kyiv to the extension of nuclear deterrence. An awareness seems to cross the old continent, motivated in particular by the sudden reversal of alliances in Washington. In this context, the need for reflection and a demanding debate is announced, explains François Cornut-Gentille, former deputy (LR) and defense advisor to Michel Barnier in Matignon.
What do you think of the adoption by the twenty-seven of the “Rearmer Europe” plan?
François Cornut-Gentille There are two subjects: how Europe is rearmed, first. Then, and it is the most immediate: should we help Zelensky? And how? It is quite paradoxical to note that these announcements were made before the Ukrainian president, while the twenty-seven did not present any answer on Ukraine-which is perhaps an answer. Nothing is pushing, in yesterday’s statements, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump to reintegrate Europeans into the negotiating table. In the long term, things may change – but everything is to be built. In the short term, we do not give ourselves the means to weigh. This plan is ultimately intended for European public opinion. But the question is not there. We should think about how to react Washington and Moscow. However, with this summit, we did not do it – or not say.
A plan of 800 billion euros for the defense has nevertheless been announced. Isn’t that an advance?
Let’s be clear: you have to gain strength. This is a significant budgetary issue given the financial situation of France. If we go into debt more, it can be done without Europe typing us on the fingers, of course. But I am not sure that this decision has totally beneficial effects. It will also be necessary to make room for maneuver elsewhere if we want to produce a solid effort over time. If we do not want to be too dependent on debt, it will inevitably go through a great political debate. We can continue to go into debt and manage the short term. Or we are trying to take advantage of this difficulty in initiating a recovery. For thirty years, we have been in the management of the immediate. We have to take a heavy turn to put the defense sector back in place. The budgetary effort will be complicated, of course, but the subject is so demanding that reflection must go beyond the pure question of figures. The President of the Republic and the political class must think things in a global political orientation. It will be crucial for the defense industry.
To ensure its awakening, it will take budgets. She also needs orders and visibility. Industrialists should not have the feeling that what we are currently experiencing at European level is a small moment of panic which will lead to a return to the status quo. How do we credibility this effort over ten or twelve years? How to make this money really profitable for our industries? There is a visibility to be provided. Added to this is another considerable subject, namely the losses of labor and skills. All industrialists will say: even if orders come, the problem of recruitment and training will remain. We will have to engage the policy of the state and the regions.
How to explain the state of the current defense sector? He gives the impression that we wake up with a long sleep …
We pay the euphoria that we knew after the collapse of the Berlin Wall. We first thought that peace was assured and that the commercial ties between countries would avoid wars. We then made a second error: that the industries belonged to the 19th century or the twentieth and that Europe would focus on high technologies. That the old world was no longer in great interest. At the end of the 1990-2000, when I went to Bercy when I was a fairly industrial region, I saw that no one was interested in the sector. For a while, we have decreased in defense and reduced the workforce. Our army turned to external operations. We have no longer considered that there can be a fight on European soil. Everyone makes this observation now. On the other hand – and fortunately – we applied ourselves to keep our technical skills. We have tried to preserve pointed know-how in different fields. We don’t start from scratch.
Isn’t the need for long-term defense planning incompatible with the modern way of doing politics, turned towards short time and the next presidential election?
This is all the difficulty. We are faced with a turn that goes beyond the budgetary framework. It goes beyond the policy of Emmanuel Macron, but also the policies carried out for thirty or forty years. To add to the difficulty, we take this turn with a very weakened president, without majority in the Assembly. Finally, the political class as a whole does not know – and is not interested, in reality – in geostrategic questions. Defense is monopolized by some technicians. They have their skills, but they do not have the quality to rise to the important challenges we face. The great leaders of the parties do not have this culture at all.
We saw this during the debate in the National Assembly organized this March 3, in particular with the low presence of parliamentarians. Then, with the exception of Marine Le Pen, the parties rather let their second knives express themselves. And when the owner of the national rally came to the gallery, it did it only to stay in the slogan, in the political controversy. Look at his reaction on the debate of the extension of the nuclear deterrence opened by Emmanuel Macron [NDLR : Marine Le Pen a indiqué que le “partage” de la dissuasion nucléaire était “une communication au mieux hasardeuse au pire parjure”]. She stayed in the slogans. However, this is a complex question, which requires a real substantive debate. It is necessary that the French understand the debate, that they do not only think that the Head of State agitates these themes to save his skin. But to do this, the political class must put itself at the level and really train on defense issues.
How could this debate take place?
I will put one of my old claims on the table. It has been announced that the President of the Republic asked that we are upgrading what is called the strategic national journal, the document that points to the hiccups, the major defense issues, the way in which we must answer them. This general document is developed behind closed doors by technicians, members of the armies, industrialists. Given the issues that we have just mentioned, he should not return to the Head of State and to some technicians alone to answer these questions. A real public debate is necessary, both so that the French understand – and the politician really seizes from the bottom of the subject. We cannot approach defense only from the angle of a approaching presidential election.
Previously in L’Express, you had warned the risk of preparing the army of today for yesterday’s war. In an interview given to France Inter Wednesday, March 5, the Minister of the Armed Forces Sébastien Lecornu, used the same expression. Do we still run this risk?
The alert signals are there. For this reason, the existence of a great debate on the strategic journal – I come back to it – seems essential to me. Currently, for example, the document of course integrates cyber, space, the new risks that the army and our company are faced. But all of this is one or two additional paragraphs. We cook boxes. However, it is essential to identify new risks. Those who do not just require some more ways, but who force to rethink the general balance.
In the Mediterranean, Turkish President Erdogan uses migratory pressure as a weapon of destabilization. It is not a risk – it is more than that, since this case has already been used. We are not thinking about this issue. However, this pressure means has also already been used in Eastern Europe by Russia. It is important to seize this debate. Not to make great tirades on the history of France or our culture – this is not the question. You have to think coldly about how to respond to a subject – migration – thought as a means of pressure – destabilization – by other countries. In the same way, we should think of the challenges concerning raw materials, or energy. The way these resources could be vulnerable. The battlefield that we see in Ukraine is only part of the subject. Other issues exist, which must be supervised and manage. But the debate remains too theoretical. These discussions should not be reserved for technicians.
Sébastien Lecornu also dismissed the possibility of returning to a military service. Is it a good thing?
There is a fantasy according to which military service would solve all social problems. It is a mythology that does not correspond at all to the reality of what it was in its last years. But as the French have the impression that something is missing in social bond, politicians tend to turn to this answer. Sébastien Lecornu is right to say that this is probably not the solution. On the other hand, we can see that our armies as our industries lack troops. You have to attract people again. This involves a very ambitious plan, carried by the Minister of Armies, on reservists … that we have been agitating for fifteen years. You have to stop announcing and responding to the problems posed! How to house additional people? What army to supervise? This requires both financial, human means, additional equipment. Here we also need to need a long -term vision and policy to reconstruct this tool.
.