Maxime Corday, director of research at the Institute of International and Strategic Relations (IRIS), one of France's most influential think tanks, published an article in early January entitled "France's Loss of Influence in European Defense: why is a strategic Leap necessary?"

In the article, the author tried to analyze the reasons why France, which dominated the European space a few years ago, is now turning into "one of many" countries. Paris once dictated fashion not only in clothes, but also in politics, but today it is no longer listened to, its opinion is ignored.

Many researchers in Europe and France state that France has lost its influence in Europe. They don't listen to her as they used to, and they don't set her up as an example when it comes to defense. In his first term, Emmanuel Macron showed success, but after the start of his second term in 2022, the country went into recession. She is no longer considered the flagship of European defense, and her ambition is now more annoying than inspiring and setting an example.

In France, as noted in Corday's article, decadent sentiments are observed. Some French officials dealing with European issues have become depressed because they do not see the point in their work.

It should be noted that the possibilities of the European project have been questioned for several years. More and more analysts are inclined to believe that Europe is stable and self-confident only as long as it remains in the shadow of the United States. The United States is the dominant force in US-European relations. Recent statements, threats and warnings from the newly elected President Trump clearly show how vulnerable the independence of the European Union is. Without the United States and NATO, the EU will not be able to counter hypothetical threats.

In this context, France, as once the leading EU country that dictated the rules and whose word was law, looks very pale today. Maxim Korde tries to explain this in his research through the failures of the European security strategy.

After the start of the war in Ukraine, Europe was really scared, realizing that they would not be able to withstand the threats. The concept of European Strategic Autonomy (ESA) has ceased to be the main goal. Macron made an attempt to inspire confidence in her by suggesting that Sweden and Finland, which have announced their desire to join NATO, apply Article 42-7 of the EU Charter (providing collective support to an EU member state under attack). According to France's idea, these countries can be supported if Russia attacks them before their official accession to NATO. However, it ended with words. According to Korde, even if specific proposals have been prepared on this topic, no practical steps have been taken other than verbal assurances and joint statements.

It should be noted that the term "strategic autonomy" was first mentioned in the French White Paper on Defense in 1994 and referred to the creation of conditions for reducing dependence on NATO and the concept of nuclear deterrence. France aimed to strengthen Europe's position and break its dependence on the United States in terms of defense and security. Paris was supposed to be at the forefront of this process. Since 2016, strategic autonomy has become one of the goals of the EU's Global Foreign and Security Policy Strategy. The concept envisioned a stable neighborhood, a joint response to regional challenges, and so on. Macron has previously stated that Europe can become the third pole in relation to the United States and China and that strategic autonomy is the key to not becoming vassals. The application was ambitious, but Paris lacked the will and authority to promote it and turn it into a pan-European goal. France did not have enough strength and support from the EU to resist the policy of the United States and Great Britain to limit ESA. These powers promoted the Euro-Atlantic agenda. According to experts, the inclusion of the phrase "transatlantic cooperation" in the Declaration of the Washington NATO Summit in July 2024 was a defeat for France.

On the intra-European track, France also suffers loss after loss. Her voice is no longer decisive, and the remnants of her authority are unable to influence the advancement of certain issues. Researcher Maxim Korde believes that the reason for the decline in Paris' image was the different approaches to existing instruments in the EU - Strengthening the European defense industry through the Joint Procurement Act (EDIPRA), the Law in Support of Ammunition Production (ASAP), the European Defense Industrial Strategy (EDIS) and the European Defense Industry Program (EDIP). The fact is that France advocates the use of tools and equipment of European origin, but cannot prevent their opening to non-European industrialists. Most EU member states, Korde writes in his article, are able to respond to the urgency of these instruments in the Ukrainian context. This means the supply of military equipment to Ukraine, regardless of its origin.

And then, once again, the United States looms on the horizon. 

The controversy over the above issue culminated in discussions around the financing of American Patriot missiles manufactured in Germany through EDIP. 

Recall that a year ago, NATO announced that its procurement agency would support a group of member countries, including Germany, the Netherlands, Romania and Spain, by signing a contract for the purchase of up to 1,000 Patriot anti-aircraft missiles. The $5.5 billion contract was awarded to COMLOG, a joint American-German venture. The large volume of the order is expected to contribute to the creation of production of these missiles in Germany.

In principle, there are no unsolvable issues. The biggest problem why nothing can be solved is that France wants to play first fiddle everywhere. Thus, Paris, as the French researcher writes, does not support the leading role of the EU as an organization in defense issues, but advocates intergovernmental cooperation between member states.

In other words, Paris does not want to give the reins of power in matters of European defense to the European Union, but plans to leave the solution of these issues at the level of agreements between individual states. Perhaps the reason is that France has the largest military-industrial complex in Europe.

France's arrogance also prevents them from convincing the Europeans. Maxim Korde notes this feature in his article.

Let's add it. that the arrogance with which Paris is trying to conduct policy not only hinders the resolution of European security issues, but also creates problems in the diplomatic field. The days of Napoleon are long gone, and the current authorities are still mentally out there somewhere, not wanting to notice how much the world has changed.

The French government is ineffective not only at the pan-European level, but also within its own country. There is a big difference between spoken speeches and actual actions, Korde writes. Sometimes statements are made at the highest level, and local executive bodies have to substantiate these statements. In other words, France adheres to "defense demagoguery." In other words, the country has ambitious security proposals, but they are not being implemented.

This is not an encouraging picture written by a French researcher who tried to figure out why France lost its position on the European defense and security track. Maxim Korde doesn't say that, but it suggests that the only way to change the situation is to replace Macron with some more far-sighted and reasonable politician who will take into account modern realities and stop considering himself the navel of the earth.