The former senior civil servant has the finest CV in the French diplomatic corps. Ambassador of France to Japan, China, the United Kingdom, Germany, diplomatic adviser to Jacques Chirac at the Elysée, secretary general of the Quai d’Orsay between 2017 and 2019… Maurice Gourdault-Montagne has held all the positions the most difficult. And do not hide a certain concern today.
What worries him? The rise of a warmongering discourse in France, in the name of the great principles of international law. With L’Express, the great diplomat rather defends the negotiation and the maintenance of the dialogue with Russia, even if it means toughening the sanctions if certain red lines are crossed. In line with Dominique de Villepin, to whom he is close. “MGM” also makes Germany, a country he knows well, the key protagonist of the change of line of Europe on the common defense policy. Awareness which is one of the main challenges of the summit of versailles, which ends this Friday, March 11. Maintenance.
L’Express: Was France wrong about Vladimir Putin?
Maurice Gourdault-Montagne: We didn’t understand what Putin wanted and we were wrong about Russia. I knew Poutine when I was adviser to the Elysée, during the war in Iraq. He had reached out to the United States after 9/11 and wanted a relationship with the West. But we did not sufficiently realize that he was a man educated during the Cold War, with the codes of this Cold War.
The Russian people are also imbued with this era. In truth, the fall of the USSR was botched. We neglected this people, thinking that the page had definitely been turned. She was not. Putin, on the other hand, has evolved from a desire for cooperation with Europe to distrust. We weren’t wrong about him, but we lost track. Today, in his analyses, there is a part of truth and obsessions. But the West has a responsibility: Russia’s demands have been ignored.
Are you thinking of the extension of NATO to the East, contrary, says Vladimir Putin, to the commitments of the American Secretary of State James Baker vis-à-vis Mikhail Gorbachev?
This file is complicated, we are in a gray area. There is no official written document. Several sources confirm that orally James Baker said this to Gorbachev. Gorbachev himself says it, Roland Dumas too. The state of mind at the time was that NATO was built in the face of the Warsaw Pact, and that since the latter no longer existed, then NATO stopped there. Whatever we think about the substance, we must take into account the Russian feeling on this point.
Doesn’t the Ukrainian people have the right to wish to get closer to the West? This is not prohibited by any international treaty.
There is the desire of the people, and there is diplomacy. When Cuba was about to receive missiles on its territory, that was also not prohibited by international law. But it was dangerous. We French have a penchant for matters of principle. “We are right.” Okay, but let’s hear what the other side has to say anyway. Those who, in recent days, are the proponents of “we have the right to…” are warmongers. Do they really want a generalized war with the consequences that entails? This reminds me of the editorial writers before the 1914 war, who wanted to send the French to the gun. Deroulede, Barres.
You have to be responsible. Establishing a no-fly zone in Ukraine, delivering offensive weapons: all of this would turn NATO countries into belligerents. But if a surface-to-air missile delivered by a NATO country shoots down a Russian plane with 300 soldiers, what will be the reaction? Before going to war, you have to look at who is opposite: Vladimir Putin today has all the traits of a paranoiac. Since the Covid, he has completely isolated himself. His reactions may be disproportionate. This warlike hardline is therefore dangerous. Of course, the invasion of Ukraine is unacceptable. The Budapest Memorandum of 1994, in which Russia recognizes the territorial integrity of Ukraine, must be enforced. But not by waging war.
How, then, to resolve the conflict?
We have to negotiate step by step, regain control of the agenda, take back the balance of power on our behalf little by little. But not like in Munich in 1936, of course. We have to lay down our red lines. Do not lose the thread of the dialogue, in a give-and-take logic. Organize a general conference on security in Europe with cross-guarantees for Ukraine. Reopen the Donetsk and Lugansk status files as President Zelensky seems to be doing. On Crimea, why not a new referendum under international supervision? We did return the Saarland to Germany after a referendum.
What can the Versailles summit bring on Thursday 10 and Friday 11 March?
The Versailles summit is very important for confirming Europeans’ awareness of the need for a common defense policy. We must think about toughening the sanctions, if necessary. This assumes that some countries, beyond the immediate emotion caused by the invasion of Ukraine, confirm their strategic shift in recent days.
You seem to doubt it.
No, it just needs to be confirmed. If the sanctions are toughened with regard to the gas sectors, oil, you have to realize what it will produce in economic terms. Are European countries ready for it? If a European plan is decided, it is because Germany will have moved on these issues. It has evolved over the past few days.
A month ago there was a joint press conference in Berlin between the French President, the Polish President and the German Chancellor on Ukraine. This “Weimar triangle”, we had not seen it for a long time. This is a good thing. But Germany remains a largely pacifist country. Will his spontaneous reaction translate into long-term investments? I note that today, the debate has not yet taken place there.
Can we imagine an uprising of the Russian people to end the conflict?
We can imagine everything, a palace revolution, a revolt, something else. Rather in the medium term, it seems to me. But the Russian population has got used to surviving on little, as long as there is no war on its territory, it will be able to endure a lot. Above all, the Russians are a people who have ideals of grandeur, of honor. We evolve in worlds that are not the same.