President Macron’s political future is likely to transcend the French boundaries, that is what he almost openly admits to. Due to his waning popularity in his home country, Macron has a realistic outlook on the dim future he is facing, come the end of his second term in office. The French have even gone so far as to coin the verb ‘macroner’.
A common criticism being levelled at the US international strategy is that even the most complicated matters are viewed through the lens of their domestic intrigue and beefs. But some recent events show that Europeans have outmatched its transatlantic ally. Some of their top public officials have given up on domestic issues to prioritise the way things they do and say affect their career trajectories. The sole goal is to carve out a convenient future for themselves, the differences being the temperament, the individual traits and the intellectual acumen.
Some may indeed find it rather appealing when global outcomes look as immaterial as the plight of their own voters. However, some European leaders still have access to significant military capabilities. Therefore, their antics cannot be brushed off as a mere joke.
French president Emmanuel Macron mentioning the possibility of sending Nato troops to Ukraine that was allegedly weighed at the EU–NATO meeting has caused quite a stir. That includes a barrage of statements coming from other European leaders and ministers who were quick to deny the very plausibility of such discussion. The only takeaway here is this: over the past several decades the US has stripped its allies of any control over their military policy to a point where they can indulge in their most reckless rhetoric. That is because they know for a fact that their utterances have no practical implications whatsoever.
This has led to the EU foreign policy largely descending into the realm of vaudeville protagonised by President Macron.
Sure enough, there are exceptions, like the leaders of Hungary and Slovakia, but they are running smaller countries with lesser political clout. The Brits have their way of doing things too, even though the UK has mostly devolved into being a European branch of the US with direct ties to DC, just like Poland. That being said, in recent years British politicians and top generals alike have publicly stated things that defy conventional ideas of what international politics should look like.
President Macron, though, has outperformed them all. His political future is likely to transcend the French boundaries, that is what he almost openly admits to. The guy is a true legend both domestically and abroad. Due to his waning popularity in his home country, Macron has a realistic outlook on the dim future he is facing, come the end of his second term in office.
By the way, the French have even recently coined the verb ‘macroner’, which denotes the actions of someone who talks gibberish, fusses about, goes on endless business trips and places countless calls without much to show for it.
Any statements made by the French president are now regarded both by the public and by foreign partners as a load of hot air and bluffs that are in stark contrast with a lack of resources to walk his talk. For instance, over the past two years France has spent a meagre €3bn on supporting the Kiev regime against Germany’s €30bn. Despite this enormous mismatch, Macrons is extremely vocal about France ‘not letting Russia win’. These vows are then echoed and regurgitated by his minions, which is, by the way, a French word for the youthful royal aides with private ties to the monarch and plenty of clout. One of those was recently named the new prime minister.
With this in mind, none of the preposterous statements offered by Macron’s cohorts really come as a surprise. For example, they said their president yet again wanted Russia to know that the West would not condone Moscow’s victory in Ukraine. If taken seriously, these comments may lead one to believe that France’s foreign policy is overseen by those with a weird idea of the way the world functions. Indeed, they seem to believe that the signals they are sending can make Russia reconsider its strategy regarding Ukraine. But the quirk these European foreign policymakers have all in common is that whenever they bring up Russia, Ukraine, China, a nuclear war or climate change, they never mean it. Instead, they are entirely fixated on their own career moves amid the pronounced lack of political competition.
However, the fact that the rest of the EU and NATO leadership decried Macron’s recent allegation as ridiculous does not mean they are incapable of spewing similar non sequiturs. It is just that they would sound boring coming from the German chancellor or sympathetic coming from the Italian prime minister. Besides, separate roles in this choir are reserved for the likes of Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, whose father presided over one of Germany’s wealthiest regions, and Charles Michel, president of the European Council, who owes his promotion to his dad, a well-respected former foreign minister of Belgium.
These dramatic changes to the European political landscape will have some serious ramifications. These are hard to comprehend since this situation is totally unique to the EU. This entrenched recklessness may have been caused by several things. First, the Europeans have lost control over their foreign and defence policies. They suffered a strategic loss in the wake of World War II, and have immensely helped the US step up its European clout over the following decades.
The NATO system involves a joint defence strategy supervised by the people in Washington who are acutely mindful of their privileges. Second, the European integration and the common EU market have significantly diminished the role of local politicians in the economic and social policymaking. Crucially, though, these factors have led to European voters being reluctant to demand real actions and real change from their leaders.
Regular Europeans have lost any interest in the wheeling and dealing unfolding in the halls of power. Smaller nations are no different from the larger ones in this respect. The welfare of Greeks and Romanians hinges on a host of factors, most of those outside their national borders. But when it comes to Germany or France, people are largely powerless too. Their economies are only developing as part of a humongous system led by the US, while smaller-scale matters are handled by the EU legislation.
All this eats away at people’s willingness to believe that the views they air, whether they be a regular citizen or the president of the European Commission, can effect change. Ordinary folks are preoccupied with their private concerns, while the elected politicians are busy minding their own shop. Except the scope, the income and the consequences of purely individual decisions may vary.
On the outside, the developmental path Europe has been navigating may look eerie or prompt a serious response. But downplaying all of the remarks made by the European leaders may not be a shrewd reaction either. Each of these needs to be countered in no uncertain terms, but the backlash should not match their recklessness.