Speeches

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, strengthening Europe's defence against its potential adversaries and reducing its dependence on external actors are objectives that are widely accepted in this Parliament. It is the means of achieving this that are the subject of debate. Your report, Mr Cremer, has its logic and consistency, but we dispute its presupposition and purpose for reasons of respect for sovereignty, but also because we believe that this is not the most effective way of strengthening our security. According to the report, the main cause of the lack of strategic autonomy lies in the selfish reflexes of states, unpredictable actors, which should be constrained from above, through integration. We reject this idea. In our view, Europe's backwardness and weakness stem primarily from the lack of massive investment in defence for decades, for ideological reasons, the belief in a post-historical world, but also because of the certainty of being part of an eternally reliable and solid transatlantic community. Moreover, we have seen too much of the limits and failures of the dogma of competition in our single market. All we have done is systematically prevent the emergence of champions and better athletes. We do not want to replicate this pattern for our defence industry. Europe, which is rearming today, does not need a single market. It needs the combination of political will to organise the defence of Europe. We therefore favour the philosophy proposed in Mr Annunziata's report, which our delegation will support, in which cooperation is fostered in key areas between voluntary States that are keen to make up for our dependencies. It is by the example given by a few, and not by the coercion of all, that Europe will tomorrow be best defended.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, some military innovations are more than just technologies integrating the repertoire of the armed forces. They call for a thorough overhaul of almost all of our security vision. This is the case of the drone and its counterpart, the antidrone fight. The proposed report shows this well. We have not sufficiently integrated all the adaptations that the drone involves. Just look at how our countries are distraught in the face of overflights or aircraft intrusions on sensitive sites or critical infrastructure. Beyond the battlefield, in our societies with complex organization, the drone can be a weapon of mass paralysis. It is therefore essential to rethink the protection of the territory, the robustness of our critical systems, but also to amend our legislation to facilitate the fight against drone. When approaching or over sensitive sites, when the environment permits, jamming or shooting down a drone should not be a bureaucratic ordeal, but a mere formality. Another imperative concerns our armed forces and defence industries more directly. We must be able to produce massively and autonomously cheap antidrone defences. This is the future of air defense, coupled with high-performance weapons and low-cost capabilities where the cost of ammunition is under control. Mr rapporteur, thank you for this very useful report, which should help to raise awareness of the total phenomenon of drones.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, our debates on common foreign and defence policy cannot ignore the context of the transatlantic crisis we are going through. Report after report, the Europeans repeated like a mantra that we should not duplicate NATO. Any US capacity had to be seen as automatically benefiting Europe in case of need. This status quo is no longer tenable. Just a few months ago, calls for European strategic autonomy were still seen as French ulterior motives or as a mark of primary anti-Americanism. We need to put the old quarrels and intent trials in the closet and look at the situation with lucidity. It is no longer possible to be under any illusions about the unwavering US support for Europe, as it is clear that US strategic interests can collide with European strategic interests. So let's be able to decide and act independently of the Americans. Independence does not forbid alliance, it is even the condition.

Mr President, the publication of the new American security strategy gives rise to a sad spectacle in Europe. Its most essential teaching is clear: We Europeans must be able to defend ourselves. But instead of thinking about it, many voices have been quick to point to European enemies from within, accused of wanting to sabotage the European Union under American patronage. Maybe you don't have the memory. Just this summer, Ursula von der Leyen handed Trump, between two rounds of golf, the act of European trade capitulation. At the same time, Mark Rutte, NATO Secretary General, incidentally European – we forget it – took care to pamper Daddy Trump. Yes, it was you who humiliated Europe; it was you who agreed for decades to hide in Washington’s petticoats; And you are the one who is ready to give up any talk about European independence, as soon as a Democratic administration comes to the fore! Ladies and gentlemen, do not seek a scapegoat for Europe’s strategic non-existence, for which you alone are responsible. Do not think that we Patriotes confuse ideological affinities with the convergence of strategic interests. We do not want a Europe aligned with the United States. So, seriously engage in discussions on the great task that is incumbent upon us all: finally building Europe!

Madam President, Europe is constantly rediscovering, one after the other, the importance of regions, lands or seas that it had or neglected or considered to have emerged from history. So we rightly stress the importance of the Arctic for Europe and its security, and we rightly point out the remilitarization of this space by Putin's Russia and the strategic potential offered by the melting of the ice. Nevertheless, Europe is still ideologically preventing itself from exploiting any opportunity for natural resources, if only by allowing exploration and prospecting. How to play the competition of the powers by inflicting on us unequal rules of play? Europe, which nevertheless sees a divergence of major interests with the Americans in this region around the question of Greenland, persists in never asking the question of its capacity to act outside the sole operational and decision-making framework of NATO. As a model space for cooperation, the Arctic is once again becoming a competition space where the realistic revolution of European nations must be measured and affirmed.

Madam President, the Russian-Ukrainian war reconfigures many capability needs in Europe, particularly in the area of salvo exchanges, from the smallest munitions to the ground-to-air missiles, which are so valuable in Ukraine. Europe is lagging far behind in achieving capability autonomy. However, it is precisely on these sectors that the EDIP programme provides for derogations in order to include armaments not fully controlled by the European States. Despite Parliament's willingness to do so, the 65% minimum percentage of European components has not progressed since previous programmes. This European preference, which is already incomplete, has overflowing ambitions in terms of governance, in particular with the introduction of this crisis mechanism, which at best doubles, at worst bypasses, the role of States and their own bodies. A former French army minister, now prime minister, said about EDIP that it is better to do nothing than hurt. It seems to us that, despite the rapporteurs' efforts, it is better to do nothing than to do halfway.

Mr President, the meeting between Trump and Putin in Budapest is unlikely to take place. Or not now. Whose fault? To the Americans? No, no. For months, they have been working hard to establish the conditions for difficult negotiations between Russians and Ukrainians. The fault of the Ukrainians? No, no. Their military resistance is the very condition for negotiations to take place, because their surrender would mark the end of the war, certainly, but certainly not the advent of peace in Europe. The fault of the Europeans? No more. Despite the distressing reactions of officials who imagine negotiations without opposing parties, it cannot be said that Europe is a spectator but that it is responsible for prolonging the war. No, ladies and gentlemen, those responsible for the impasse are not in Kiev, Brussels or Washington. They are in Moscow, in the Kremlin, where we persist in pursuing maximalist objectives that were Putin's from the beginning, although the means to achieve them may have changed: the total submission of Ukraine to annihilate its sovereignty and identity.

Madam President, Europe's commitment to supporting Ukraine in its struggle for sovereignty is not only fair, but also in line with our security interests and seeking ways to continue this support while not seriously undermining the budgetary situation of our countries is a welcome step. However, the idea of a zero-interest loan, the repayment of which would be based on possible Russian reparations, questions deeply. To imagine that Russia, after three years of invasion, would easily compensate its aggression is less a strategy than a gamble and even a fantasy, one that a regime that has so far shown only contempt for international law suddenly begins to be docile. The failure of this bet would have a clear consequence. The debt will remain. It will fall on the shoulders of the Union and the Member States. In short, the Europeans will pay the Russians 140 billion euros. This proposal weakens the Europeans in the necessary balance of power in the negotiations. We will transform what was previously an instrument of potential pressure into a financial obligation to Russia. We are trading diplomatic leverage for a financial burden. Helping Ukraine and preparing for its reconstruction is a necessity, we are well aware of this, but we prefer the solid, politically tenable mechanisms and concrete military and material aid that Ukrainians need rather than the risky borrowings.

Madam President, Commissioner, as you know, we are firmly committed to the sovereignty of States, respect for territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders. We therefore unambiguously denounce Russia's violations of the airspace of allied European countries. This firmness must be accompanied by lucidity and proportionality. Outrageous statements that equate any intrusion with an act of war or call for the shooting down of any flying object are counterproductive and mask the real stakes. The excesses fuel the propaganda of the Russian regime, which wants to present the countries that are the victims of the violations as countries responsible for an escalation. The excesses create a climate of fear, which hinders much more than it facilitates the implementation of ambitious military policies. In the face of airspace violations on the eastern flank, procedures exist, fully controlled by our armed forces and especially by our pilots. So let us avoid any manifestation of panic and any form of castratory paranoia. We are not at war with Russia, and that is all the better. But we are not at peace either. These categories have not disappeared, but war and peace are two extreme poles between which there exists a grey zone, made up of intermediate states, within which each seeks to impose its will on the other. It is in this grey zone, this "peace war", where we find ourselves with Russia, where any unnecessary incitement to commit the irreparable is to be outlawed, but where we must be careful not to be tetanized by the threats of total war brandished by Moscow to prevent us from acting. For let us not be mistaken: Military invasion is not the only option a state has to impose its will on others. When we talk about a new generation of war, we often forget to remember that the masters of this strategy do not reside only in a few countries. think tanks Western countries, but that they exist in Russia, where a doctrine of circumvention of the armed struggle to achieve strategic objectives was also thought, and of which Ukraine was an ideal testing ground before 2014. So what to do? Dissuade. Deterrence through the potential and active role of our armed forces. Deterring by making the potential adversary understand that their nuisance capacities are limited, which also requires the internal cohesion of our societies. To dissuade by turning definitively the page of the last 30 pitiful years when, not content to have proclaimed the end of History, we also announced the end of the territory. However, the territory is making a great comeback and with it, the need to protect it, to make it robust and resilient, not only against jihadist groups, but also against dissenting or hostile state operations. To deter is to prevent harm, and that is what we must be able to produce in Europe with regard to Russia. Neither an impulse to go to war, nor "watery Munichism", to use General de Gaulle's formula about those who wanted to give in to Khrushchev's pressures. Deterrence, therefore, because war is not desirable and because peace is not yet possible.

Mr President, who can deny that Moldova is of the greatest interest to Russia? The attentive observer who opens a map of Europe will find this small state nestled between Romania and Ukraine, a country with which it shares nearly 1,000 kilometers of borders. Relatively distant from Russia, lacking an army with the slightest modern capabilities, Moldova poses no threat to Russia's security. On the other hand, by its geographical location, it would be an ideal salient in the Kremlin's plans against Ukraine. More than that, Moldova is Moscow's testing ground in its policy of sponsoring forces loyal to or subject to Russian ambitions in Europe and of which Ilan Șor and his galaxy are the deplorable embodiment. This undeniable observation cannot be enough to explain all the ins and outs of Moldovan democracy. Let us not over-polarize electoral issues that are not reduced to being pro-European or pro-Russian. Support for European integration has been declining in the country for years, even before the war in Ukraine, because the reforms implemented and the generous donations from Brussels are far from having made the economic activity and living conditions of the most modest citizens flourish. The voter who does not support or no longer supports Maia Sandu does not want his country to become a satellite of Moscow. While we owe Moldova our solidarity and support in the face of any Russian attempt to undermine its independence, we also owe it the truth and avoid giving the impression that its European anchorage is held at arm's length from abroad.

Madam President, first of all, let me pay tribute to the many Ukrainian civilian casualties of the last few days. The Russian vehicles that cross the Ukrainian sky with impunity have brought them death. We are told that the plans for a European Reinsurance Force are ready. Very well. But these plans are plans of the mind. Their details are certainly scholarly, their logistics well thought out, but they are valid for the future. While the war is still raging and the blood of the Ukrainians maculates the fortresses of Donbass, these plans are a terrible admission of impotence. Not only are they only worth it in the event of an American green light, without which there will be no intelligence, no surveillance, no detection, but, above all, they say to the world: We Europeans have not been able to prevent this invasion, we have not been able to dictate the outcome of the conflict, but believe us, we will act when it is over and if we are allowed to do so. In the midst of the ensauvagement of the world, Europe runs towards great misfortunes if it persists in believing that power is given rather than taken.

Madam President, Prime Minister, what if the Danish Presidency was that of a European preference finally assumed? Denmark has an opportunity to lead the way. As regards the defence industry, you inherit the negotiations of the EDIP programme, and it is essential that the ambition of this text is not undermined by derogations that would prolong dependence on the United States. In terms of migration policy, Denmark is a source of inspiration. You show us that the cultural and social cohesion of a nation is only possible through strict border control and regulation of demographic balances. Defence, immigration: These are only two issues, but perhaps the most essential and emblematic of the new world that is emerging before our eyes. The two are intimately linked. Europe will have no free destiny if it does not have the military means to deter new imperial claims. And Europe will not be credible on the outside if its identity is not guaranteed on the inside. Guardian of the Nordic Straits, Denmark now has the opportunity to steer the European isthmus towards a new direction: that of his rebirth.

Madam President, 'hide your talents to better wait for your time'. This was the advice given by former No. 1 of the People’s Republic of China Deng Xiaoping. The impressive restoration of China’s power can be seen in the depths of Europe’s decline. Beijing has deployed a grand strategy to close its critical dependencies on the rest of the world. China has built up strategic stocks and organised the transhumance to its territory of Western industries to better flood it in return for its overproduction. For its part, the European Union has spent the last 30 years thinking of itself and building itself as the vanguard of a new nomos of the earth, based on the negation of territory and, more generally, on the denial of geopolitics. The ‘Reckless Thirties’ are shattered, even if some would like to cling to this hallucinated parenthesis. Europe will not escape the duty of power, and this power will only be able to claim it by recognising and assuming the world trade war that is under way, one of whose fronts opposes it in Beijing.

Madam President, in the history of military alliances, NATO is an anomaly. At its origins, the power on which the bulk of the alliance's effort would rest – the United States – was somehow forced to secure its support for Western Europe through a treaty. NATO was not self-evident for the Americans, who remained, for some, faithful to the founding fathers, George Washington in particular, who invited the United States to renounce binding alliances. Since 1949, the United States has consistently ensured that its freedom of action is never hindered by an alliance. America, of course, knows how to show solidarity, and history proves that. But first she has the will to think and act on her own, alone. Today, the Atlantic Alliance remains the primary framework within which European states enshrine their collective defence. But we need to question what a military alliance is: is to have common values. On the margins. Is it a technological or normative instrument? Not only that. An alliance is first and foremost the sharing of strategic interests. That is why we need to ask this crucial question: Do we constantly share the same goals and interests as the United States? The pressure on some close allies, the desire to get along with competitors and opponents over Europe or the lack of consultation make it possible to doubt this. NATO cannot be an alliance in which each member must visit the Oval Office to ensure its validity. While all European states are engaged in significant rearmament, it is essential that they also consider increasing their responsibilities within the alliance. This is what the next NATO summit should do: confirm to America that Europe intends to play its full part in its defence and therefore its full part, and no less, in the decision-making and leadership of the alliance. We cannot increase our capabilities while remaining strategic dwarves.

Mr President, we are used to saying that wars always result in civilian casualties, but what about when, under missiles, under drones and under rubble, brothers are killed? To speak of brothers to speak of Russians and Ukrainians is obviously not to question the existence of a Ukrainian nation, identity and people. It is to point out their objective proximity, that of a language certainly distinct, but coming from the Eastern Slavic family, that of the same founding myth, that of the same Orthodox faith, even if it is torn between two Churches. We Europeans know very well how terrible fratricidal wars are. Our beliefs and myths bear witness to this: Cain and Abel, Romulus and Remus, Eteocles and Polynics. Why did Putin, who claims all the time that Ukrainians and Russians are one and the same people, embark on a war of annihilation? For him, Ukraine is a little brother, but he is an unequal brother, an illegitimate brother. As we know since 2014, Putin wants to reign supreme in his imperial domain, he refuses that the Ukrainians can choose another destiny than the one decided for them. He prefers an annihilated Ukraine to a Ukraine freed from Russian tutelage. Thus, while the American neoconservatives were bombing in the name of humanity, the Russian Falcons are pounding in the name of fraternity; While Westerners changed regimes in the name of human rights, Russians want to do so in the name of historical pseudo-rights. Each time, it is our conception of a world based on relations between nations that is broken and it is the Empire that asserts itself at the expense of nations. Colleagues, peace remains possible, but it must also be accompanied by a change of mentality at the top of Russian power: consider the Ukrainian as a brother, not to better tie him up and destroy him, but to recognize him as an equal.

Madam President, soon 1,200 days of unceasing fighting since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Open and almost total war since 2022, more localized but already deadly war since 2014 and, in truth, war constantly renewed for centuries and in different forms by Russia against the very existence of Ukraine. How can we not see that the fierce resistance of Ukrainians to the Russian army is a feat and even a miracle? It would be disastrous if the miracle, even if marred by an unbearable territorial amputation, did not end in disaster. This disaster would be the outright collapse of the Ukrainian armed forces, those that, from Soumy to the Black Sea via Pokrovsk, Kherson and the banks of the Dnieper, hold the sovereignty, independence and freedom of Ukraine in their hands. That is why the Europeans, who unfortunately do not have a magic wand that can give the decisive victory to the Ukrainians, can nevertheless two things: best ensure the material capacity of Ukrainians to hold the front and seek a general ceasefire, leading to lasting peace, their permanent agenda and even their obsession.

Madam President, in proposing to buy Greenland and its people, the US administration has not only shown that it does not understand indigenous aspirations, nor has it merely adopted a brutal attitude towards a loyal ally. Donald Trump is in fact part of a long succession of American desires to acquire this island so strategic as resources are discovered, maritime traffic intensifies nearby and it is at the heart of an area where Russians and Chinese are also deploying a great strategy. While it is worth recalling our fullest solidarity with Denmark – and I want to do so here – let us also try to better understand what is being played out across Greenland or over it. On the one hand, it must be clear to all Europeans that, in American diplomatic grammar, being an ally has never meant and never will mean being equal. On the other hand, the Arctic zone no longer escapes the return of the logics of confrontation and militarization. It is no longer the sanctuary of cooperation it has been since the end of the Cold War. May Greenland be an additional warning for Europe to assume and agree to defend itself everywhere, all the time and vis-à-vis everyone.

Mr President, it is in conquest that empires are born, and it is in massacres, wars of eradication and genocide that they end up dying. What is the Armenian Genocide but the expression of Turkish supremacy within an Ottoman Empire that could no longer support the diversity of its whole? The Armenians, like the Pontic Greeks or the Assyrians, were crushed in the infernal imperial gear, the one that needs not to unify, not to gather, but to destroy everything that differs from the central element, everything that could pose a threat to its hegemony. Denying horror is an admission of failure. By doing the worst, Ankara has certainly wiped out a whole swathe of Armenian civilization – to be Armenian today is to live with the devastation already accomplished as a legacy – but Armenia lives on. Armenians live and continue to live their unique civilization in the world despite the expansionist and revisionist plans of its neighbors. On this day of commemoration of the Armenian Genocide, I want to express my full support to the Armenian people and tell them that they will always find in us an ally against those who want to deny or forget.

Madam President, the international context in which we live is in the process of being reconstituted. European nations no longer have the right to weakness and naivety. Beyond the necessary military rearmament that each state must provide, it is moral rearmament that we must carry out. We know it, the XXIe The century will not only be the century of power, it will also be the century of identity, the century of the ability to defend who we are, what we believe in. In order to be credible on the international stage, Europe must not lend itself to internal destabilisation. It must at all costs avoid saying or acting in such a way as to give our opponents and competitors the opportunity to weaken and discredit us. That is why, ladies and gentlemen, I want to denounce here the profound attacks on democracy carried out by our own nations, here in the heart of the continent that gave life to democracy. After Romania, it was France that decided yesterday to deprive its citizens of their freedom to vote by eliminating the main candidate in the presidential election. I fear, ladies and gentlemen, that this undemocratic drift will seriously damage our reputation, and therefore our ability to make our voice of freedom heard in the world.

Madam President, Europe’s biggest problem is never doing things at the right time: too early, too fast or too late and too little. It was not until the invasion of a European country that we became aware of the weakness of our military stockpiles and the extent of our dependencies, too late or almost so. In Syria, the opposite is true. Some people’s Manichean reading grid led them to believe that a executioner could succeed only a hero. Ministers and officials, and unfortunately among them the French Foreign Minister, flew as quickly as possible to complicated Syria with simplistic ideas. However, children are taught that one train can hide another. Should European diplomacy be reminded that a dictatorial regime – that of Assad – can hide Islamist barbarism – that of the new power and its armed factions? Prudence would not have prevented the terrible massacre of the Alawites, but it would have avoided dishonour. Shame on those who reached out to Syria’s new masters when it was dirty with yesterday’s atrocities and full of tomorrow’s crimes!

Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to express my concern and doubt. The concern is that of a transient European excitement, without a future; Doubt is about the real determination to ensure that Europe does not depend on anyone for its defence. The US administration’s statements have caused a state of amazement on the continent. A historical parenthesis is about to close: the one that wanted the US to commit to protecting Europe. It had lasted for 70 years for some states, for 30 years for others. However, are the calls to build this European strategic autonomy really sincere? Let's imagine a scenario: having conditioned the maintenance of US protection on an increase in defence budgets, Donald Trump announces an additional condition tomorrow: Europe’s rearmament must be done with the US military industry. This will be the moment of truth for Europe, the moment when it will face an existential choice: Should our common destiny remain in the hands of the tenant of the White House, or are European nations capable of regaining self-confidence, believing in their genius, exploiting their immense potential and asserting themselves on the international stage as a union of free states, capable of deciding and acting in their own interests? Colleagues, let us say it aloud: we do not want a Russian Europe or a Europe made barbaric by Islamism, but neither do we want an American Europe. What we need to look for and build is European Europe.