“Using Nuclear Weapons as Tool for Strategic Dialogue, France Pushes Russia to Talk”

Lova Rinal, an expert on nuclear deterrence, is an associate researcher at the Foundation for Strategic Research.

Le Figaro. – What lessons can be learned from Emmanuel Macron’s intervention this Thursday?

Lova RINEL. – The basic lesson of this visit is that the president is perhaps witnessing an awakening, or French beginning to relearn the international balance of power. But the real one, which breaks the tension. We see a very calm president, sure of his position and the reasons that compel him to maintain this posture.

If we focus on the President’s words, we realize that he is saying nothing more than what many defense and deterrence experts have been explaining since the beginning of the conflict:

We are facing a war desired by Russia that goes beyond a bilateral conflict. It is colonialist and hegemonic and will not stop at Ukrainian territories.

The second lesson, and it is certainly the strongest, is that France is one of the keys to this conflict. In the coming months (through 2026), the French president’s ability to manage the balance of power with an ally like the United States, which appears to be moving to the Russian cause, could be crucial for Europe.

Deterrence allows you and me and everyone in the region to be safe without having to go through military training.

Lova Rinel

In short and to put it more simply, another lesson we can draw is that France is playing its geopolitical card. The responsibility and the challenge of carrying the message beyond the Russians and Americans today rests with France.

Furthermore, President Emmanuel Macron does nothing but respect the definition of our principle: strategic independence. He said this on Thursday evening, which is very positive and reassuring. Maintaining this freedom of action will be crucial for France.

““Russia should not and cannot win this war,” the head of state stressed that the security of France and Europe is at risk in Ukraine. Is the head of state trying to make the French aware of the threat to Europe and therefore to them, so that they support his action?

France lives in the world protected from any conflict on its territory due to its embargo since the 1960s. By conflict, I mean so-called high-intensity wars that require calls for conscription; Which also partly explains France’s choice to leave military service.

Also readNicholas Tanzer: “The question of evil is the gateway to strategic analysis”

Our strategic choices for territorial defense have made it possible to reduce our recruitment requirements, due to our deterrence. It allows you and me and all the people in the region to be safe without having to go through military training. One of the direct consequences of the end of military service (1996) is that France based its defense essentially on deterrence, with a ground army presence on OPEX. The vigilpirate plan came to remind the French that our army exists and protects our territory but in reality, we are not trained for war. This in itself is a good thing, but it limits the understanding of the limited collective imagination on matters of conflict risk. Russia has shattered this ideal by invading Ukraine and threatening the West with nuclear attacks. The President has just reminded us of this harsh reality.

Obstruction is obfuscation of important interests; We do not define them, otherwise we will lose the negotiating advantage, but it is the certainty of a nuclear response in the event of an attack on our vital interests.

Lova Rinel

We must also understand that this peace is also valid in Europe, certainly the nuclear umbrella exists, but it is fragile. It is already in the hands of the Americans, who, remember, create uncertainty about the USA’s ability to implement Article 5 of the NATO Charter (collective defense) if Donald Trump wins the next election. Doubts are honestly raised in light of various comments made by Donald Trump suggesting that if he wins, he will withdraw all support for Ukraine and not involve American forces in the conflict with Russia.

Is France in danger if Ukraine loses this war? The question is as important as it is broad. Indeed, it is not France but the whole of Europe that will be at risk and the Baltic States continue to warn us on this subject. Opinions differ in France, but in Europe, the consensus is much broader. Therefore I write again that not only France, but the whole of Europe would be in danger in the event of a victory of Russia in the integrity of its territory and its interests, and this is the opinion shared by the European States.

Also read“President intimidates”, he “blows on the horns”… Opposition condemns Macron’s war speech

And as the journalists have rightly mentioned, without getting into a high-intensity conflict with Russia, the latter has continued to attack us since 2017 with destabilizing attacks that are also one of the new faces of the conflict with one power: interference, disinformation, cyber raids. … Obviously this is regardless of the various attacks on our model of society, the protection of the LGBT community and individual liberties that seem to be a justification for the attacks carried out by Vladimir Putin. Taking responsibility for them. Wagner is just one example among many.

Emmanuel Macron assured that nuclear weapons “protect France” against Russia. Is Emmanuel Macron trying to maintain obscurity? Should we interpret them as wanting to maintain a standoff against Putin? From what purpose?

Obstruction is obfuscation of vital interests; We do not define them, otherwise we will lose the negotiating advantage, but it is the certainty of a nuclear response in the event of an attack on our vital interests. This is also the heart of the President’s interview on the ban on Thursday. France was eager to find a solution through diplomacy to “pacify” the Russians, but it came up against a wall of aggression and blackmail that was unacceptable to the Ukrainians.

Today we are far from a nuclear crisis.

Lova Rinel

The purpose of deterrence is really to put nuclear weapons on the table. Here it is Russia that imposed it in this conflict (24 times since 2022) to prevent any discussion. France creates another balance of power, using nuclear weapons as a tool of strategic dialogue, it forces Russia to negotiate. The blockade used by France is a way to return to discussion and not escalate tensions. The ball is in Russia’s court; He must decide whether he accepts the hand extended to him to find an end to this conflict.

We have a president who has probably figured out the only way to talk to Vladimir Putin is force. It is unstable here, but in Russia it is respected, and that is the main thing.

With such a statement, are we not risking a slippage involving nuclear deterrence?

Deterrence has been in place since the 1960s (the first French attempt at a blue jerboa), a non-use weapon to encourage them to stop attacking us. This is the definition of deterrence, and unless I’m mistaken, France hasn’t been nuked by Russia, so it works at this point. The day the weapon is used is mechanically the end of the barrier and failure. Today we are far from a nuclear crisis. The French nuclear deterrent is credible in the eyes of everyone, even the Russians, and President Putin may talk about the superiority of his weapons, but nuclear power is no less powerful. It is a fact that strategic nuclear weapons like ours could cause irreversible destruction for Russia, so it is in no interest for them or us to get to that point. But it’s up to Vladimir Putin to buckle under pressure, and that’s the message France is sending him. For the first time, the Russians are showing significant resistance, I believe on the contrary that it is the beginning, certainly of tension, but the imperative moment to arrive at something where we, like the French Europeans, guarantee our security.