The ongoing war in Ukraine has dominated headlines, but the French presidential campaign has not disappeared from the national conversation. Elections in France remain pivotal, yet the campaign is frequently pushed to the background by the urgency of international events. In this context, President Emmanuel Macron continues to attract significant attention from supporters and critics alike.
Marc Endeweld, known for his research on centrist leadership, has written several insightful books on Macron, including L’ambigu monsieur Macron (2016) and Le grand manipulator (2019). Before the Russian invasion, Endeweld worked as a journalist for La Tribune and Le Monde Diplomatique, contributing analyses that often focused on France’s position in global affairs. His January issue Effect explores French international policy and is widely discussed in the French presidential arena. In an interview with El Periódico, he notes that Macron presents a calm international posture but that this may not translate into measurable diplomatic outcomes with Moscow or Kyiv.
How should one view the French president’s role in negotiations among Russia, Ukraine and Western partners?
Perhaps because Macron is relatively young for a head of state, his approach has sometimes blurred diplomacy with spectacle. He frequently leverages his international profile to influence domestic voters. Yet this strategy has not yielded a clear diplomatic breakthrough in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Russia is skeptical of his independence, perceiving him as closely aligned with Western interests rather than a truly autonomous French diplomacy. As a result, Macron’s position appears uncertain even among allies in liberal and authoritarian blocs.
Even his international initiative has drawn questions from Washington.
The French president often makes gestures on the world stage but delivers limited results. From the Mali troop withdrawal to the wider conflicts in Libya, Syria and Lebanon, there have been notable disappointments during his tenure. Within the Biden administration and among parts of the liberal press in the United States, there is a sense that Macron positions himself as a major power ready for one-on-one talks with leaders of authoritarian countries like Russia or China, though perceptions of this ambition vary.
How has France’s stance on Russian gas affected Macron’s ability to engage with Putin?
Eastern European caution about dialogue with Russia remains a barrier. France had taken a firm stance against Nord Stream 2 even before the invasion, aiming to limit European energy dependence on Russia and to prevent Germany from becoming Europe’s energy hub. Yet diversifying gas sources, particularly from Algeria, proved challenging. France’s commitment to nuclear energy also collided with anti-nuclear positions in parts of Europe, including Germany. These energy disagreements left European governments more vulnerable once the war began, complicating efforts to speak with Moscow from a united front.
Aren’t you too harsh on Macron? Europe’s push for strategic autonomy seems most reasonable amid the current threat from Russia and the renewed U.S.-China tensions.
There are fair points. Macron has offered valuable insight on shifts toward Asia and on Europe aiming for greater defense independence. Early on he spoke of a Europe of defense and strategic autonomy, yet progress stalled as Merkel’s approach favored a more layered alliance strategy. The balance among the United States, China and Russia has remained delicate, and advancing a singular European strategy faced friction across European capitals.
Macron did not emphasize southern European partners enough.
There were missed opportunities to broaden alliances with southern European nations within the Council of Europe. Relations with Italy faced friction tied to business interests rather than diplomatic negotiation. The Saint-Nazaire shipyards issue, tied to Italian state involvement and MSC’s family ties to Macron’s principal adviser, added another layer of controversy and delay.
And with Spain?
Spain’s government under Pedro Sánchez chose not to deepen ties with Paris, viewing Macron as less aligned with its left-leaning, progressive agenda. This dynamic complicated the traditional image of Macron as a modern, socio-liberal leader and contributed to misperceptions at the international level.
Following the invasion of Ukraine, European governments announced substantial increases in military spending. Could this bolster Macron’s Europe of Defense project?
To reassure anxious publics, leaders’ statements must be weighed carefully. A defensive Europe would require sustained unity beyond rhetoric. When national budgets, like Germany’s impressive 100 billion euro pledge, influence European defense orientation, it can shift the balance toward a more integrated or more dependent security posture. The Scaf fighter aircraft project, a France-Germany-Spain collaboration, illustrates the practical challenges of advancing defense initiatives amid varying national priorities.
France’s pursuit of diplomatic independence could suffer if NATO’s influence strengthens further.
There is a real risk that Washington could use the Ukraine crisis to press for broader political and economic alignments that reduce Europe’s autonomy. While it may curb Russia’s leverage, an overreliance on the United States could dampen Europe’s own strategic capabilities and shift leverage toward American priorities in the long run.
Even with a complex global backdrop, Macron opens the April presidential race as the frontrunner, largely shaped by the war in Eastern Europe. How can this be understood?
The electoral climate has become heavily influenced by international affairs. Macron’s portrayal of France as a nation actively engaged in resolving the Ukraine crisis has helped consolidate domestic support in the short term. This has produced a united front that boosts poll numbers but may complicate the discussion of strategic issues such as nuclear energy policy and other long-term questions critical to France and Europe. As the campaign progresses, questions about the legitimacy and durability of a second term for Macron are likely to resurface, particularly on issues of defense and energy strategy.