Former French PM: "The West is more isolated than Russia"

Dominique de Villepin eschews Macron's proposal to send NATO troops to Ukraine as utterly irresponsible

Arnaud Bertrand runs one of the most interesting X accounts for anyone interested in international politics, so if you don’t follow him already go and do it right away! He recently made the effort to translate into English an interview that Dominique de Villepin, former French prime minister, gave to French TV. The topic is Macron’s suggestion that NATO could send ground troops to Ukraine. Here’s what de Villepin had to say about it:

For this debate [over sending ground troops] to have been useful, it would have first been necessary for us to be able to answer five questions. Five risks associated with this escalation, this step we would be taking if we were to send ground troops, send fighters. Five risks.

The first is the expansion of the conflict. If we send ground troops, do we know if on the Russian side others will send, on the other side, ground troops? Will we face African fighters, will we face Asian fighters, will we face Middle Eastern fighters in this global south that also wants to take on the West? First risk.

If Westerners, Europeans, French send troops there, don’t you think that solidarity will also play on the Russian side? I think we still need to ask ourselves that question. In any case, our diplomacy has not done what it should have to isolate Russia. If Russia were isolated, we would know it... I think, by the way, that we are more isolated, unfortunately, than Russia.

Second major question: new front. Risk of a new front. I warned, I was among the few voices to say “be careful, Ukraine is a dangerous situation but what happens if another front opens?”. The front in Gaza and the Middle East has opened. But there are other fronts that can open: in Korea, in Africa... And so, are we going to wage war like this on all five continents? This reality must be taken into account: the world is not limited to the drama and tragedy of Ukraine. It turns out that America is a global power and that we claim to be a global power too, so we are concerned by the major balances and the order of the world, and unfortunately our diplomacy does not sufficiently take into account these disorders which concern the Congolese, the Sudanese, etc.

Third risk which is important: the terrorist risk. I am not thinking of terrorism that would come from our opponents in Ukraine, I am thinking of opportunistic terrorism. When there are situations of this type of disorder, terrorism strikes. And I remind you: we have planned here in France not a year of war, but a year of celebrations. In a few months, we will commemorate the 80th anniversary of the D-Day landings and delegations will come from all over the world. We are going to spend several months celebrating the Olympics. If we need to mobilise, let’s mobilise, but maybe it should have been done a bit more: I don’t see a war economy, the preparation of minds in terms of civil defense and hybrid warfare, I see nothing... You don’t just pull the idea of going to war in Ukraine out of a hat without having prepared a little...

Fourth risk: we are on the eve of an American election that will determine the new world order. It’s a safe bet that we are heading for a new era of isolationism and protectionism like the world has never seen. We are seeing a split in this new world order between Trump and a China that has just celebrated the reunion of its parliament and is becoming more introverted, more focused on its security than ever. This is a general global context that must be taken into account.

And then there’s one last element that may be one of the most important, which is the nuclear risk. I know the good experts, the great experts who speak on this subject and I respect them immensely. But sending ground troops, fighters, places us in a situation in terms of deterrence that we have never known. Forty years of Cold War: the forces of the Warsaw Pact and NATO forces never clashed. And it’s not by chance: it’s because of a reality that relates to the grammar of nuclear.

The rule of deterrence is based on the principle of mutual assured destruction. That is, if one uses the bomb and the other responds, we’re all dead. [...] I think the nuclear grammar means that today the risk of NATO ground troops in Ukraine presents a risk and that this risk, for responsible powers, is unacceptable. I travel enough around the world to have observed something for 15 years: the use of nuclear weapons is based on political cultures, societal cultures, and civilisations. The world is changing and what seemed unthinkable 10 or 15 years ago appears today differently: the rhetoric of the enemy, the hatred of the other, has developed to a point where we live in an international community that may want to settle scores with the other. [...] Today, and I’m not just thinking of the Russians, let’s not forget nuclear proliferation with countries like Pakistan and many others that now have nuclear weapons.

And it is in this that the principle of responsibility is essential, and there is a rule that must be drawn from all this: the logic of force, when not controlled, leads to an escalation that can be deadly. This is what makes the situation in Ukraine a real danger and it’s also what makes — because this principle of the logic of uncontrolled force I would gladly apply to the situation in Gaza — it’s what makes the Israeli policy applied today to Gaza a real danger. Because there is no control over the use of force. And when you look [...], all fronts are linked, all crises are linked.

All I’ll say is, it’s almost heartbreaking to hear a Western politician (well, former politician) capable of logical thinking. Hearing these old-school politicians talk is a painful reminder of just how degraded the Western political classes have become. Ultimately, this is probably the greatest risk we face: that, in the West, we are governed by a ruling elite that is clearly lacking the political and intellectual skills, not to mention the moral compass, necessary to navigate what is arguably the most severe global geopolitical crisis ever. Indeed, the increasingly unhinged behaviour of Western leaders is largely the reason we’re facing a global geopolitical crisis in the first place. Never before have nuclear arsenals been in the hands of leaders so dissociated from reality. They’re like monkeys wielding machine guns. Indeed, it’s hard to a imagine a better example of the dangerously vacuous state of European politics than Macron casually raising the possibility of going to war against a nuclear power, all for a few headlines. Few people in the West realise that the only reason we haven’t all been annihilated in a nuclear fireball yet is the fact Russia, as well as China, have both shown great restraint in the face of constant Western provocations — and in the case of Russia, outright aggression, given the West’s direct involvement in attacks on Russian targets, including inside Russian territory. But such restraint has its limits. Do we really want to find out what those limits are?

Thanks for reading. Putting out high-quality journalism requires constant research, most of which goes unpaid, so if you appreciate my writing please consider upgrading to a paid subscription if you haven’t already. Aside from a fuzzy feeling inside of you, you’ll get access to exclusive articles and commentary such as this:

Thomas Fazi

Website: thomasfazi.net

Twitter: @battleforeurope 

Latest book: The Covid Consensus: The Global Assault on Democracy and the Poor—A Critique from the Left (co-authored with Toby Green)