World Geostrategic Insights’ interview with Eric Denécé on the reasons behind Macron’s and the UK’s hardening stance on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, why the narrative that Russia can be heavily defeated militarily in Ukraine, and crushed economically, is still dominant in the Western media and chancelleries, despite the different situation on the ground, the role played by U.S. in provoking the war, and whether it could play a role now in ending it.
Eric Denécé, PhD, HDR, is the Director and Founder of the French Centre for Intelligence Studies (CF2R). During his career, he previously served as: Naval Intelligence Officer (analyst) within the Strategic Evaluation Division at the Secretariat Général de la Défense Nationale (SGDN); Sales Export Engineer of Matra Defense; Director for Corporate Communications of NAVFCO (French Naval Defence Industry Advisory Group); Founder and Managing Director of Argos Engineering and Consulting Ltd, a Competitive Intelligence consulting company. He has published thirty books, and he is regularly consulted by the French and international media on terrorism and intelligence issues.
Q1 – French President Emmanuel Macron has repeatedly warned that European troops may be forced to intervene if Ukraine is unable to stop Russia’s military advance. I have a clear strategic objective, Macron said, “Russia cannot win in Ukraine …. If Russia wins in Ukraine, there will be no security in Europe, … who can say that Russia will stop there? What security will there be for the other neighboring countries, Moldova, Romania, Poland, Lithuania and others?” Almost all other European leaders have reacted skeptically to such a suggestion, but some analysts believe that whether or not this proposal is realistic for some NATO countries, the mere possibility of Western troops joining the Ukrainian armed forces in the battlefield is one of the Kremlin’s biggest fears. What are your thoughts on this? What is the rationale behind Macron’s toughening up on the Russia-Ukraine war? What consequences could the presence of French military troops on Ukrainian soil unleash?
A1 – All this is pure comedy. Macron is a powerless president, because the French army has been considerably reduced since 1990. For thirty years, defense has been the budgetary adjustment variable of French governments, right and left. To find such low numbers in our armed forces, you have to go back to Louis XIII and Richelieu, in the 17th century, when France had 28 million inhabitants. That gives you an idea of how far we’ve regressed.
With the best will in the world, we could commit no more than 15,000 men… with logistics and a lifespan of no more than a month. This would have no effect on the conflict except to engage a NATO country and cause French soldiers to die needlessly.
What’s more, whatever the quality of French units, they are in no way prepared for the high-intensity warfare in which the Russians and Ukrainians have been engaged for two and a half years. Like all Western forces, for over thirty years they have been waging asymmetrical wars against weaker adversaries (Iraqi army, African guerrillas, terrorists, etc.).
The Russians know all this. Macron’s posturing has no impact on them. They replied that if French troops were involved in Ukraine, they would be targeted in the same way as the Ukrainians. But in reality, they take little notice of the French president’s rantings, which he stopped taking seriously a long time ago.
What’s more, none of the other political leaders of the NATO countries agree with Macron on this point, which further undermines his credibility… Nevertheless, he persists. He thinks he’s introducing a “strategic ambiguity” with his remarks but he’s only provoking incredulity among his allies, his adversaries and the French. We wonder if he thinks he’s the “white knight”… but this rider Macron has neither horse nor armor. Yet he parades all the same!
Q2 – British Foreign Secretary David Cameron withdrew the ban on Ukraine using British weapons to strike targets in Russia, saying NATO’s goal should be to “keep Russian soldiers out of places they have no right to be.” A strong decision, considering also that it stands in stark contrast to that of the United States, which has consistently banned Ukraine from using the weapons it supplies to strike targets in Russia, and even discouraged Kiev from doing so using its own domestic capabilities. And indeed, in response, Russia has threatened to strike British military installations and equipment both in Ukraine and elsewhere. What is your opinion? What are the UK’s foreign policy goals regarding the conflict in Ukraine? Has a “cordial entente” been established between Britain and France, both willing to consider all options in support of Ukraine? Are the two countries trying to take the lead in European defense and diplomacy?
A2 – The British are, along with the Poles – and perhaps even more – the most hawkish people in Moscow. More so than the Americans themselves. It’s worth remembering that in the UK, Russophobia has been atavistic since the Cold War. Boris Johnson’s visit to Kiev at the end of April 2022 scuppered negotiations between the Russians and Ukrainians, even though an agreement had been reached to end the conflict. The British are all the more aggressive because they are Washington’s privileged allies: they feel highly protected by Washington, which in fact calls on them to carry out certain missions on Russian territory that they do not want to carry out themselves… Moreover, the British consider themselves far from the theater of operations and believe that no Russian retaliatory strike (non-nuclear) can reach their territory. Finally, this conflict weakens the European Union, particularly Germany and France, which has always been in their interests. It’s a form of post-Brexit revenge.
But it’s worth pointing out that the state of the British armed forces is even worse than that of France, particularly where recruitment is concerned. Their aircraft carriers have serious availability and maintenance problems. However, they continue to push Ukraine into war, and have delivered STORM SHADOW missiles with a range of 300 km, i.e. capable of hitting any target in the Donbass, Crimea… and Russia. Moscow will not tolerate this and has sent a very clear message to London. Let’s hope the British understand that they are playing with fire.
Q3 – Despite large supplies of Western arms and ammunition to Ukraine, the Kremlin holds the strategic initiative on the battlefield, particularly in the northern Ukrainian region of Kharkiv, enjoying a significant advantage, while the Ukrainian military appears to be struggling and Ukraine’s internal compactness is showing signs of weakening. In addition, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has raised economic growth expectations for Russia in 2024 and lowered those for the Eurozone. In fact, the Russian economy continues to grow, and the IMF forecasts a much faster expansion than last year as Moscow’s military spending encourages broader growth. These forecasts raise questions about the effectiveness of Western sanctions in undermining Russia’s economic revenues and its ability to finance the war in Ukraine. In essence, the West has tried to crush and isolate the Russian economy, but it does not seem to have worked. Nevertheless, in the media, and in Western chancelleries, the narrative that Russia can be heavily militarily defeated in Ukraine, and downsized economically, is still prevalent. What is your opinion? Why does this disinclination to take real data into account persist? Why is a diplomatic solution to this conflict still being ruled out?
A3 – We in the West have long been in total denial of reality under American influence. This was the case long before the outbreak of the conflict itself. Let’s not forget that if the United States had agreed to take into consideration Moscow’s legitimate security demands for a neutral Ukraine, and if Kiev had not wanted to reduce the population of the Donbass by force (in violation of the Minsk agreements), the conflict would not have taken place. Everyone has long recognized Israel’s right to defend itself and intervene on its neighbors’ territory to neutralize threats, and to override UN resolutions. But we do not grant Russia this right…
So, right from the start, a narrative sought to make us believe that Russia wanted to invade the whole of Ukraine (it has neither the means nor the will!) or even the whole of Europe (even less!). Then, paradoxically, we were told that its operation was a failure, that its army was mediocre and would collapse. We were told that it would not withstand sanctions, that its economy would collapse, that the Russian people would overthrow Putin, and so on. Yet none of this has happened. Our politicians – and undoubtedly part of the intelligence community – got it badly wrong, but they don’t want to admit it or accept the failure of their strategy. They continue to make the conflict last, hoping for who knows what, because Ukraine is now incapable of winning this war. And everyone knows it. This obstinacy is irresponsible and tragic.
Q4 – In many of your speeches to the press, radio and television, you have stated that the war in Ukraine was provoked by the United States, NATO and Zelensky government. Therefore, a direct responsibility for Russian aggression lies with the Biden Administration. On what grounds? From the other side, referring to the 2024 U.S. presidential election, Russian President Vladimir Putin said he would prefer to see a “more predictable and experienced” Biden remain in office than Trump. The former U.S. president called such remarks “a great compliment… Putin does not want to have me. He wants Biden because he will be given everything he wants, including Ukraine.” What is his opinion? How do you envision U.S. policy toward the Ukrainian conflict under an eventual Trump presidency, which has explicitly said it will let Russia do “whatever the hell it wants” to NATO countries that do not pay enough? In general, can we say that the election campaign and internal political struggles in the United States are helping to thin Ukraine’s chances of victory? Just as the U.S. has, according to your analysis, provoked the war, can it play a role now in ending it?
A4 -I believe that this conflict was provoked by the Americans. Let’s not forget that they have constantly reneged on the commitments they made at the end of the Cold War not to expand NATO. They have never agreed to take Russian interests into account, despite Moscow’s insistent demands since 2007. They have done everything to install ballistic missiles in Poland and Romania within a 10-minute flight of the Kremlin. They overthrew the legally elected President Yanukovych in a coup d’état in 2014. They have constantly pushed Kiev to harden its stance towards Russia since 2014 and to regain control of the Russian-speaking Donbass by force, training Kiev’s army and special services. They were well aware that Moscow would not be able to stand idly by indefinitely but thought they could lure it into a trap. In such a situation, Putin had little choice: if he didn’t react, Russia would see NATO and its missiles on its doorstep. If he did react, he became the aggressor. He chose the latter, but the American trap did not work as planned, despite the Russian army’s initial setbacks. The American strategy was a resounding failure, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths… but the press continues to try to make us believe the opposite, and that Russia bears full responsibility for this conflict.
Unfortunately, the United States is always better at starting wars than finishing them. We remember the pathetic departures from Saigon in 1975, and more recently from Kabul. The Americans are sorcerer’s apprentices, who often fail miserably. But they are very pragmatic, much more so than the Europeans. They’re capable of doing a 180° turn… and letting us manage this war they helped start. For the moment, however, I see no sign of a way out of the crisis before the American presidential elections in November.
Eric Denécé, PhD, HDR – Director and Founder of the French Centre for Intelligence Studies (CF2R). Last publications:
- Renseignement et espionnage Pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale [Intelligence and Espionage during the Second Word War], (editor), Ellipses, Paris 2024.
- La guerre russo-ukrainienne. Réalités et enseignements d’un conflit de haute intensité [The Russian-Ukrainian war. Realities and lessons from a high-intensity conflict], (editor), CF2R/TheBookEdition, Paris, 2024.
- Ukraine : la Guerre américaine [Ukraine : The American War], (editor), CF2R/TheBookEdition, Paris, 2023.
- Renseignement et espionnage Pendant la Première Guerre mondiale [Intelligence and espionage during the First Word War], (editor), Ellipses, Paris 2023.
Top image source: AFP