Macron, Democracy And The Dilemma of Nuclear Deterrence

–Analysis–

PARIS — It’s a necessary, yet impossible exercise. In a democratic country, it’s obviously essential to debate matters of war and peace, budget priorities and major diplomatic issues. This is all the more important at a time of growing global instability and rising international tensions.

But the task French President Emmanuel Macron undertook on Tuesday night, in a lengthy TV interview, was made harder by these contradictory demands. Everyone sees the threats and understands the need to prepare for them. Yet the same citizens are unwilling to sacrifice social or infrastructure spending, which they already feel is lacking.

A telling example came from journalist Darius Rochebin, who pointed out that North Korea has delivered more shells to Russia than all of Europe to Ukraine. That’s true. But the president’s reply was just as valid: Who would want to live like North Koreans, with 45% of national resources going to defense, leaving only crumbs for health or education, not to mention the loss of freedoms? These contradictions must be lived with.

From the outset, Macron tried to frame the debate around the idea of freedom. Remaining free is “the challenge of all challenges,” he repeated.

Too little or too much?

Three years after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, a majority of French and European citizens still stand in solidarity with Ukrainians fighting for their freedom — polls consistently show this. But in Western Europe, amid the calm of this peaceful spring, is the threat to our own freedoms truly felt and shared? That’s another contradiction political discourse struggles to address.

Ultimately, it’s clear that both public opinion and journalists’ questions revolve around the same dilemma: Are we doing too much or not enough for Ukraine? Is it costing too much, or must we do everything possible to block the Russian threat?

It’s unclear whether the president’s words can resolve this when the national agenda is already overloaded with conflicting emergencies.

Nuclear deterrence

The issue on which the head of state was most precise was French nuclear deterrence. And rightly so because the very ambiguity that is sometimes necessary in strategic matters is, by definition, ambiguous.

A public debate has begun over the potential European role of France’s nuclear deterrent, which remains the only one within the EU. The other member states currently rely on the American nuclear umbrella, through NATO — a setup whose limits are becoming increasingly apparent with U.S. President Donald Trump.

While these issues once felt abstract, they’ve now taken on new urgency.

Macron clarified three fundamental points: France will not fund the extension of its nuclear deterrent to Europe; any European effort will not come at the expense of France’s own defense investments; and there will be no sharing of the decision, which will remain solely in the hands of the French president.

Macron’s predecessor, François Hollande, recently noted that while these issues once felt abstract, they’ve now taken on new urgency. And that the 2027 presidential election will determine the man or woman who holds the nuclear button.

That surely warrants a public debate, however difficult the exercise may be. Such is the greatness — and the burden — of democracy.