March 5, 2025 - 7:00am
Two figures sum up Emmanuel Macron’s current quandary. One is the latest in the disastrous downward spiral of his popularity ratings: 21%, as measured by the Ifop polling institute in January. The other was published in Le Figaro last week: almost half of French voters (49%) believe the same Emmanuel Macron “represents France well abroad”.
The French strongly resent the instability which has plagued their country since the President called a snap election last summer. The National Assembly is irreconcilably divided, there have been four prime ministers in a little over a year, it took five months to pass a Budget, and the compromises needed to pander to various sides mean actual reform is almost impossible.
There are, however, two (related) areas where Macron remains in sole charge: foreign policy and defence, pace the Constitution of the Fifth Republic, tailor-made by and for Charles de Gaulle. Donald Trump’s provocations have given France the perfect opportunity to advocate for a continent-wide response to America’s sudden trashing of the Ukrainian cause and President, with Britain’s Keir Starmer leading the way alongside Macron following Sunday’s leaders summit. Given that both France and the UK are nuclear powers and permanent members of the UN Security Council, the collaboration makes sense.
It also helps that Starmer has been far less disruptive than successive Conservative leaders, either towards France or the EU in general. Macron was stunned by David Cameron’s Brexit gamble; didn’t much see the point of Theresa May; loathed his fellow narcissist Boris Johnson; barely glanced at Liz Truss whizzing by; and only cautiously sent out advances to Rishi Sunak, a man of his generation with a broadly similar global outlook. By comparison, Starmer is a far more familiar figure, quasi-French in his social-democratic outlook (and his Chancellor’s appetite for new taxes). He’s also a neophyte on the stage of international statesmanship, and happy to defer to his more experienced French counterpart — something to which Macron will hardly object.
Early on during the Ukraine war, Macron sometimes gave a Trumpian impression: initially, he thought he could deal with Vladimir Putin, only to retreat from Moscow licking his wounds after failing to convince the Kremlin against its avowed aim of annihilating Ukraine. Meanwhile, Boris Johnson immediately established a rapport with Volodymyr Zelensky, which grated at the Elysée.
Luckily for Macron, the Anglo-French partnership sketched by Starmer comes at exactly the right time. For decades, the two countries’ militaries, roughly equivalent in strength, have been deployed in different theatres of operations. Two treaties, Saint-Malo in 1998 and Lancaster House in 2010, have provided for increased cooperation, while France and Britain have frequently stood alone in Western Europe as Germany refused to even consider joining arms.
Putin and Trump, each in their own way, have been the unlikely midwives of this prospective Europe de la Défense. In the case of Germany, the quasi-neutrality advocated by the lacklustre Olaf Scholz led to his replacement by the comparatively clear-eyed conservative Friedrich Merz. Italy, meanwhile, has committed to a strong pro-Europe policy, with Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni declaring at the weekend that Western division would be “fatal for everyone”. New polling demonstrates that her Fratelli d’Italia voters are the second most committed group of Italian voters (73%) when it comes to favouring further European integration, including a common EU foreign and defence policy.
Yet, unless Nato splinters between an American arm and the rest, it will be Britain and France leading the effort. This suits Starmer, whose diplomacy has boosted his popularity at home and achieved something close to cross-party support. It’s even better, though, for Macron, who now has renewed relevance and gravitas abroad as his authority declines further within France. He is no doubt sincere in his support for Ukraine and his resistance to Trump, but the situation has played to his political advantage. Just as Rick Blaine addresses Captain Renault at the end of Casablanca, one can picture Macron telling his new chum in Downing Street: “Keir, this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.”
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeStarmer and Macron are a joke and pretty much irrelevant to proceedings, much like this article.
Great picture of Macron. Looks like he’s done something in his pants.
Really? I thought it looked like someone else had goosed him.
Both politicians are following the time-honoured sabre-rattling strategy of those who fail domestically. It isn’t going to work. Most people realise that the real threat isn’t coming from Moscow. It’s already here.
Rather disingenuous an article. Where is the defence budget for both these countries? Without U.S support and funding, neither are anywhere. France has a slight edge in terms of its domestic MIC; but in a multi- polar world the advantage is with the non Western world nations- India and China. The U.S remains the most impressive military power, and it is entirely correct of Donald Trump to want to focus on the real threat- CCP ruled China.
to be fair the US is hardly an impressive military power with 500k Troops compared to Russia’s 2.2 Million
It’s equipment failing to bits, it’s training sub par. Americans love looking at others and saying how bad they are, but they never self reflect. The US military would not be able to defend Ukraine, just think of that, hardly a global power
True. But still the U.S army is strong. Compare that to the rest of the Western world. Trump knows the fallible aspects of the U.S armed forces – that’s why he does not want unnecessary forever wars.
China’s Army 2 Million Personal
US Army 500k Personal
Now i don’t think the Chinese can fight for toffee, but the US miltary is a shadow of it’s former self. Per Population it has the same amount of Troops as the UK, despite spending nearly a trillion a year
If France and the UK really do want to lead an Europe de la défense strategy, then they’ll have to completely change the orientation of their respective militaries – away from being the supporting actor in the US’ military adventurism (Britain) and away from colonial wars (France), both in terms of their organisation, posture, and especially equipment.
(In a sense, that task is being made easier by Russia chewing up Europe’s military equipment – Europe can essentially start with a blank slate.)
The military equipment and posture needed for defence is radically different from those needed for foreign interventions and force projection; defence focuses on troops, equipment and especially ammunition in large volume. The war in Ukraine has shown that troops and equipment need to understood as expendable.
In a defensive posture, the need for logistics shrinks dramatically since you’re relying on pre-positioned stores, the ratio of “tooth” to “tail” increases. No finicky prestige weapons – 100 jeeps instead of one Lamborghini. No reliance on senior NCOs trained for 10 years, and if you lose one, the unit is hamstrung; instead, masses of junior officers whose training will be completed in action.
This is all politically unpalatable, unsexy, and not to the military-industrial complex’ liking. It will also deprive Ursula von der Leyen of her €800b slush fund. So no chance of it happening.
Quite. All this talk of providing peace-keeping troops in Ukraine etc. poses the questions, if the Russians invade again, or start shooting, are they going to shoot back? Are UK/French/Euro-whatever troops going to shoot at the Russians.
If no, they what are they there for?
If yes, then has the money been set aside for the kind of equipment and manpower to fight a conventional ground war with Russia across the vast flat spaces of Eastern Europe? It’ll be a bit late if they wait until the shooting does start.
You can see why the Poles and Americans aren’t interested. I can only assume that Starmer and Macron are figuring they’d be there as a kind of NATO tripwire, to drag the US back in.
Starmer and Macron 2 Politicans that will soon be forgotton.
The EU we will spend 800 billion, well to achieve parity with the US , that’s would need to be on a yearly basis. Who’s gonna pay, Recession hit Germany, Europe is Bankrupt, and no one fighting for it
These are children playing make believe
Macron helped destroy Ukraine by convincing them not to accept peace in 2022 along with Boris and Biden, so no.