Speeches

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.

Madam President, Navalny writes in his memoirs that the biggest mistake Westerners make is to confuse the Russian state with the Russian people. Navalny was fiercely fighting the Kremlin and the corruption of a system of which, according to him, the people are not the primary concern. His enemies have happily portrayed him as a puppet in the service of the foreigner. Yet Navalny was a fervent patriot, so much so that some liberal circles saw fit to exclude him, for they considered him too nationalistic. A Russian patriot, Navalny had also become a fervent Orthodox. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.Gospel of Matthew According to him, this was the central political doctrine of modern Russia. His struggle was that of homeland, freedom and justice and, unlike Tolstoy, he firmly believed in the role of the individual in history, or rather in the possibility of hastening things, of creating the conditions for radical change. What does Alexei Navalny's fight tell us one year after his death? It is a message that is addressed to both Russians and Europeans and that combats all determinism. Russia can take a direction where everything around it, and especially Europe, will cease to be perceived as a hostile world. Yes, another relationship is possible and nothing pushes Europe and Russia against each other forever.

Mr President, as seen from the European capitals and their views, the war that has been raging for almost three years is framing the struggle between good and evil, between democracy and autocracy or, for others, NATO's war on Russia. Beyond diplomatic and strategic considerations, the deeper meaning of this conflict has been overlooked. This war unleashed by Moscow is, for Ukrainians, a war of national liberation. Let's hope so, the last one they have to lead. Already between 1917 and 1920, Ukraine had proclaimed its independence. But unlike the Poles, Finns or Baltics, it had not been able to preserve it, because it had been shaken from the inside or overthrown from the outside. Ukraine cannot therefore claim a long state continuity and this allows some to deny it the right to exist. In Putin's speech on Ukraine, Metternich is sometimes thought to be heard, who called Italy a mere "geographical expression." In the nineteenth century as today, the language of empires has always denigrated and fought the spring of peoples. Bummed between powerful neighbors and despite attempts to eradicate their culture, Ukrainians have a strong identity. In the Ukrainian soldier who holds the front, one can guess the freedom-loving Cossack who guards the border. This war finally sheds light on one of the great questions posed by the fall of the USSR, that of the possibility of a post-imperial Russia. Russia's invasion of Ukraine tells us what choice Russia has made today. While Russia is taking a path away from the nation-state, Ukraine is becoming one more every day.

Mr. Speaker, are we ready to speak the language of force? Are we ready to swap the diplomacy of values for the grammar of power? It is to these questions that the new US administration invites us to answer. Not just because Donald Trump is going to put global pressure on us, but because America is going to move away from multilateralism and shake up the liberal order that once dominated. This is Europe forced to look at the world as it is and as it has never really ceased to be: a terrain of confrontation of interests, a permanent balance of power, a clash of identities and representations. Yet it is as if some Europeans are suddenly petrified. We even saw those who fiercely criticized candidate Trump throw their swords and put a knee down. More than two thousand years ago, Thucydides told us how the inhabitants of the island of Melos refused to submit to the Athenian Empire. They had certainly ended up being defeated, but they had defended a certain idea of freedom. Today, with forces far greater than the modest citizens of Mélos, Europeans are quick to be docile. Christine Lagarde, Stéphane Séjourné, Ursula von der Leyen... The apostles of federal Europe are already offering their submission and promising to buy more and more from the Americans – more for defence, more for energy, more for trade. Ladies and gentlemen, let us take this historic opportunity to turn this page of history where Europe has been made up of client states, subject to a distant metropolis. Let us find a little of this truth of the Greeks and their models of free, strong and united cities before being subjugated or swallowed by foreign powers.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that Putin devoted an entire article and televised messages to the history of Ukraine on the day before and on the day of the invasion, as well as an hour-long interview with journalist Tucker Carlson, was anything but trivial. It was an undertaking to deny the history of a Ukrainian nation that we witnessed. The invasion of Ukraine was preceded and then accompanied by a mental invasion aimed at both Russians and Ukrainians and at us, the peoples of Europe and the West. In Putin’s hands, the weapon of history serves to convince us of the inseparable fate of the Russian and Ukrainian peoples. In a supreme lie, the Kremlin wants to assure us that by invading Ukraine, killing its sons and bombing its cities, Russia would actually be committing a fraternal gesture. The Ukrainian nation is resilient. But here, in Western Europe in particular, we are poorly protected against this ideological assault. Who does not really think that Ukraine is Russia's little sister, that Ukrainian is a dialect of Russian and that all this has always or almost always formed a bloc, from the time of the Tsars to the former USSR? Colleagues, to be with Ukraine as we have been since the beginning of this war is also to get rid of an obsolete imaginary that contributes to the defeat of Ukrainians.

Mr President, the horror and darkness of the Assad regime is giving way to the joy of colourful Syrian crowds. On the faces of the children, the smile is wide, where, thirteen years earlier, the repression began with their horrible mutilation. How can we not wish this country, these ethnic and religious minorities, these peoples who make up the long Mediterranean memory, harmony and lasting peace? Departed from the great Syrian game, the Europeans can, it is true, rely only on their hopes. But to give the impression that they existed, some people thought that the fall of the hated regime was also a victory for their ideals. I am deeply concerned about the resilience of our continent to the threats that surround us and permeate us when I see that, to reassure you, it is enough for a jihadist to cut off a few beard hairs and pronounce the word ‘inclusiveness’. It is possible, of course, that the new Syria is showing signs of opening up, and perhaps it should even be encouraged. But please don’t let your emotion affect your lucidity. Many fly to the complicated East with generous ideas, but once their desires are satisfied, they leave behind a devastated East. And often, to cry, only the eyes of others remain.

Madam President, security is the basis on which everything is built. Mr President, that is a welcome formula. A few years ago, to those who shared the idea, it earned them contempt, mockery and especially indifference. But let's move on, rehashing mistakes is not in anyone's interest. This report contains proposals against which our group will always be opposed, particularly when national sovereignties could be planed or circumvented. Nevertheless, this high-quality report embodies the psychological revolution that is underway. Yes, external threats are accelerators of lucidity, the Russian military threat in the East has proved it. But some threats are still poorly designated. You mention the instrumentalisation of migratory flows by certain powers, but that is only one aspect of the problem. By the sheer scale of the numbers, both legal and illegal, immigration is jeopardizing the entire continent. It breaks the cultural cohesion of Europe, it installs foreign peoples on our soil who come into confrontation with our European peoples. Mr President, I propose an addition to your quote: Security and identity are the foundation on which everything is built.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a Frenchman should not say that, but the first military power in Europe is not France, it is not even another European nation, it is the United States. The military weakness of the Europeans at the beginning of the Cold War had led them to beg for American involvement in Europe from the time of peace, contrary to Washington's diplomatic tradition, which never tasted the binding alliances that could undermine its freedom. It is their same weakness today that makes Europeans fear the distancing of their distant protectors. Certainly, the US president will work to end the war in Ukraine. But he is also preparing, like the parent letting go of the child's hand for his return to school, to push us to take our responsibilities to dissuade Russia from any new offensive. America no longer wants to do the work that Europeans should do. An illustrious Frenchman claimed that the defense of France had to be French. With the same consistency, he fought for the defence of Europe to be European. This fight is ours. Otherwise, ladies and gentlemen, it is futile to speak in this Chamber of any kind of European political existence.

Mr President, before and after the storm, there can be a calm that makes you lose your guard. In the South Caucasus, displaying Soviet maps in front of them, Armenian and Azerbaijani authorities discuss the treaty of their borders. And yet, it is an endless war against the Armenians, started more than a century ago by the Turks, now pursued in other forms by the Aliyev regime. Artsakh has fallen, and tomorrow it is the very border of the Republic of Armenia that could be targeted, in particular the Syunik region, whose control would allow the Azerbaijanis to achieve a Turkish territorial continuity from the Mediterranean to the Caspian. Russia’s protection of Christian Armenia was an illusion. It was conditional on the alignment of Yerevan with Moscow. It is the honour of France, and it should be the honour of all Europe, to replace this insincere alliance and to guarantee the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Armenia. For Paris, this means strengthening the defence partnership with Armenia, whether in terms of combat training – particularly in the mountains – or arms contracts. In the foothills of the Caucasus, the search for peace does not exclude – but, on the contrary, requires – the balance of power to put an end to certain imperial ambitions.

Mr President, more than a century ago, on 6 February 1918, the Moldavian Democratic Republic of Bessarabia was proclaimed. Then, very quickly, faced with the demands of the Bolsheviks, the young Republic voted to join Romania. Let us dive back into the context of this Europe that emerged from the First World War. Borders are disputed everywhere, against the backdrop of the decomposition of empires, and nations that have been oppressed for too long aspire to independence. Young Bolshevik Russia does not understand it that way. Lenin took up the imperialist ideology of the Tsars and put it at the service of the revolution. He throws his troops in all directions to quell the aspirations of the peoples. Moldova, like others, is becoming a target. Under false pretexts, the Russians are already attacking the old province and looking as far as the Carpathians. In addition to Romanian support, the Moldovans can count on France, which then wants to erect an eastern barrier against the Reds. France would go so far as to deploy an infantry regiment to protect the Moldovan Republic, which would engage in intense fighting against the Bolsheviks as far as the Dniester. Why recall these episodes largely disappeared from our memories? Russia's large-scale invasion of Ukraine has been a game-changer, putting Moldova's strategic importance back at the heart of European concerns. With the war in Ukraine, Russia has shown that it no longer forbids itself from directly resorting to armed struggle. At the beginning of the invasion, if Odessa fell, Transnistria was a natural extension of the New Russia project. Moldova would then have been quite unable to oppose any resistance to the powerful Russian neighbor. This war revealed the fragility of Moldova, and therefore the importance of this country for Europe. If the hypothesis of a direct military intervention by Moscow has moved away, the sources of concern remain major. Russia uses all non-military means to destabilize the country and expand its influence, to bring it down without fighting: from the use of Transnistria to financial support, energy blackmail or information warfare. It is therefore essential that Moldova be able to cope with this hybrid offensive, especially in the electoral context. This should not prevent us from having a realistic and firm discourse on the sometimes disappointing and often mixed results of the promised reforms, particularly in the fight against corruption. Moldova's resilience to Russian ambitions cannot simply be strengthened from the outside. It will first require citizens to regain confidence in their ruling class and in real prospects for the future.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, calls for unconditional military support for Ukraine have met with little support in Europe, except sometimes in this Chamber, on benches which, even a few years ago, were busy liquidating our means of defence. By laying down certain conditions, by reflecting on the purposes of this aid, would no one really want to help the Ukrainians? Rather, the answer lies in a well-known, almost banal formula, Clausewitz's, which stated: War is the continuation of politics by other means. This formula has more implications than we think. Military force must not be an end in itself, nor an instrument of morality. It is at the service of politics. The war between Ukraine and Russia did not interrupt their interaction, but it took its most violent form. And in this raging war, peace is in the seed, necessarily, because the outcome of the conflict will involve political negotiation. It is in this context that we must think of support for Ukraine. The goal cannot be the crushing of Russian forces in a decisive victory. And yet, interrupting all support for Ukraine would cause a general collapse and therefore a decisive Russian victory. A Ukrainian victory today is not to lose, it is to weaken the will of Moscow whose strategy, reduced to snacking, has been bogged down for two years. It is to prevent Ukrainian exhaustion in this war of attrition. It is then in this dynamic that a window of diplomatic opportunity can open, which we must want and know how to seize, and in which Ukraine must be in the most favorable situation possible. Strength and negotiation do not oppose each other, we must know how to assemble them. It is in this context that support for Ukraine takes on a political meaning, in addition to having, of course, but it is something else, a historical meaning, that of the very real and ancient existence of a Ukrainian nation, of the right of its people to choose their destiny without a power dictating it to them in the name of a biased rereading of history.