The British " Financial Times " reported that the recent remarks of French President Macron on the Russian-Ukrainian conflict caused an uproar within the Western world, causing the latter to be collectively criticized by multiple NATO allies for a time.
It is reported that Macron said in an interview with the country's TV station that even if Russia uses nuclear weapon against Ukraine, France will not launch a counterattack on par. He also emphasized that Paris's nuclear policy is very clear, that is, it should be based on the "fundamental interests of the country". It is obvious that Ukraine suffered a nuclear attack on and has no direct connection with France's core interests.
Macron's response was straightforward and sincere. It can even be said that he said something that most NATO countries dare not say, but his remarks made the two images that NATO has carefully shaped for a long time in danger.
First, NATO's strong nuclear deterrence capability will be questioned. The West has repeatedly reiterated that if Russia uses nuclear weapons, it will be subject to a strong response from NATO, but what they will do has not been clearly stated.
Recently, NATO announced a high-profile nuclear deterrence exercise next week, leaving rich room for imagination for the outside world. Now Macron directly broke the "strategic blur" and actively admitted that France would not launch a nuclear counterattack, which undoubtedly made NATO's exercise very funny. Second, NATO's moral authority is under threat.
In the past, the West has been exporting ideological to the outside world to provide moral legitimacy for NATO to interfere in other countries' internal affairs. Macron's claim that the nuclear policy is based on national interests, rather than those illusory values, directly making the defenses of NATO and Western countries unconvincing.
So, seeing that France not only showed its "trump card", but also stripped off NATO's underwear, Western countries immediately couldn't sit still, and they were furious to ask Macron for an explanation. This time, the UK, which also had nuclear weapons, took the lead.
The country's defense secretary Wallace said that France made a premature statement and was obviously inappropriate. The Dutch Defense Minister pointed out that France can only represent itself, not others, and the deterrent strategy of Dutch will not explain what circumstances it will react to other countries.
Although facing sharp criticism from allies, Macron did not intend to change his decision. The next day he further elaborated on social media and declared that France did not want to fight a world war . The Financial Times admitted that the "strategic ambiguity" of the West may be about to come to an end.
In fact, France has always been alone within NATO and has played an opposite tune with the United States more than once. Therefore, it is not surprising for many people that Macron made the above remarks. The reason why it caused such a big response in the Western camp is mainly related to France's special status.
NATO has dozens of members, but only the nuclear-capable countries are the United States, Britain and France. In other words, France is an extremely important part of NATO's nuclear deterrence system. Then France's position will undoubtedly have an impact on NATO's nuclear strategy. However, France's national strength is limited after all, and there is no need to exaggerate its impact.
For NATO, what is more lethal than Macron’s remarks is the international community’s dislike of NATO and the division between member states, and Macron’s so-called “inappropriate” remarks happen to be a reflection of this trend.
First of all, people are increasingly questioning the significance of NATO's existence. Since Cold War has ended and the original opponent Warsaw Pact has long been disbanded, then NATO's huge military organization continues to exist and continues to expand its sphere of influence, which is completely lacking in legitimacy and theoretical basis.
Since the new century, NATO has launched many military operations under the leadership of the United States, and the impact it has brought is basically negative, among which Afghan War and Iraq War are the most typical. Now, NATO has successfully provoked a conflict between Russia and Ukraine. This move not only did not improve the security environment in Europe, but instead put the latter in greater danger.
Secondly, NATO member states are unwilling to blindly obey NATO's overall principles. Once they are questioned, the support they can get will be much worse than before. The United States will be unable to use NATO to kidnap Europe.
Now it is difficult for NATO to reach a consensus on new strategic goals. Even in the Russian-Ukraine conflict, it is difficult for the United States to keep countries consistent with the issue of joint aid to Ukraine. After all, France has just publicly expressed its thoughts. Do other countries have no idea of their own? I'm afraid it's hard to say.
Just like the British Defense Minister criticized Macron for showing his "truck card" too early, if Russia really launches a nuclear strike against Ukraine, London will probably not launch a reciprocal counterattack. This is the hypocrisy of the West.
At present, people's livelihood issues such as soaring energy prices are making NATO leaders worried. In the dilemma, the originally covered up contradictions will naturally emerge. I believe that with the intensification of inflation , NATO's division will be further exposed to the international community.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-