Macron reveals topics he discussed with Putin
Macron told journalists that the call centered on Iran's nuclear program and the need to preserve the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), according to a video broadcast by BFMTV on Friday.
'I called him first on the Iranian issue and the necessity of maintaining the non-proliferation treaty,' Macron explained. 'It was very important to reach an agreement, because France also bears responsibility for ensuring stability.'
The French president described the conversation as 'important for France,' noting that both nations, as permanent members of the UN Security Council, share obligations under the NPT.
Following a series of Israeli and US bombings of its nuclear and other strategic sites, Tehran suspended cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), accusing it of failing to condemn the attacks on facilities under its supervision. Iran also claimed the UN agency colluded with its adversaries, alleging it had passed the identities of nuclear scientists to Israel, several of whom were later assassinated.
According to the Kremlin's readout of the July 1 call, both Putin and Macron emphasized the need to respect Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy while fulfilling its obligations under the non-proliferation treaty. Moscow and Paris also agreed to continue diplomatic engagement to avoid further escalation in the Middle East.
Macron also said he could not report any 'progress' on Ukraine in his discussion with Putin, echoing sentiments expressed by US President Donald Trump following his own call with the Russian leader on Thursday.
'We shared our disagreements,' Macron said, insisting that 'there needs to be a ceasefire first, followed by the resumption of negotiations.' He added that Western sanctions, including those already imposed by the EU and new ones proposed by the US Congress, were essential to applying pressure.
The Kremlin confirmed that Putin reiterated Russia's view that the Ukraine conflict stems from years of Western disregard for its security concerns. The Russian president maintained that any settlement must be 'comprehensive and long-term,' address the 'root causes' of the crisis, and take into account what Moscow describes as the 'new territorial realities.' Russia and Ukraine resumed Türkiye-hosted talks earlier this year after nearly three years without direct diplomatic contact, following Kiev's withdrawal of its demand for an unconditional ceasefire as a precondition for negotiations.
Macron's outreach comes amid a shift in his stance on the conflict. While previously advocating the deployment of French and other NATO troops to Ukraine, the French president has more recently proposed that the EU begin considering a broader dialogue on regional security that includes Russia as part of a potential peace framework.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
Russian Communists want Stalin rehabilitated
The Russian Communist Party (CPRF) has set the goal of restoring the reputation of Joseph Stalin, adopting a resolution calling for 'historical justice' for the one-time Soviet leader. According to the document supported at a party convention held this week, the criticism of the Stalin era and his policies leveled by his successor, Nikita Khrushchev, was 'misdirected' and 'politically motivated.' In its resolution, the CPRF distanced itself from Khrushchev's assessment of what he called Stalin's 'personality cult.' In 1956, Khrushchev, who himself played a significant role in the political oppression of the Great Terror – a period of mass repressions in the USSR in 1930s – denounced during a famous Communist Party congress the crimes of his former boss and the cult of personality he cultivated during his reign. He also introduced a policy of 'de-Stalinization,' removing memorials to his predecessor around the country. Stalin's legacy still divides opinion inside modern Russia. Some revere him for his leadership through World War II, while others view him as a tyrant responsible for the death of imprisonment of many. Russia's modern Communist Party views Stalin in an increasingly positive light. In 2021, the Communists in Nizhny Novgorod Region announced their plans to construct a museum dedicated to him. 'Stalin is a symbol of victory, the commonwealth of fraternal nations, the power and greatness of the Power that ensured peace in the world and kept it from World War III,' the head of the local party branch, Vladislav Yegorov, said at the time. According to Yegorov, the Nizhny Novgorod Stalin Center should become the first step towards opening similar museums across Russia. The party also organized the erection of monuments to Stalin throughout the country. At the latest convention, the CPRF also adopted another resolution calling on President Vladimir Putin to rename the city of Volgograd back to Stalingrad. Long-time CPRF party head Gennady Zyuganov has long advocated for such a step. He made a similar appeal ahead of the 80th anniversary of victory over Nazi Germany in the Second World War in May. According to the CPRF resolution, Volgograd Region should revert to its 'historical' name as well. The Kremlin has so far not commented on the initiatives.
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
Azerbaijan's jitters show why Russia can never fully trust its neighbours
Azerbaijan has switched to 'restless neighbour' mode once again, reminding us of an enduring reality: countries living within Russia's sphere of influence will always fear Russia. Our relations with post-Soviet neighbours will continue to be periodically marred by misunderstandings, as is happening with Baku today. Russia's borders remain largely transparent and porous, with the exception of our boundary with one of the friendliest great powers of the modern era – China. Across all other frontiers, the legacy of empire persists, making it pointless to distinguish fully between internal and foreign policy. Whether it takes the form of a military presence, allied obligations, cultural and linguistic ties, or sheer dependence in foreign policy, Russia's neighbours – from the Baltic states to Poland and Finland – remain in its sphere of influence. These relationships are the product of centuries of history. No matter how they struggle to escape, they rarely succeed, and even if they do, Russia continues to occupy a central place in their imagination. The Baltic states and Finland have cut themselves off from Russia, yet they cannot truly live without thinking about it. Nothing changes in substance. This is the inescapable consequence of historical ties, and although it may bring trouble and anxiety, it is also a given. Fear, sadly, is the natural response. We must understand that Russia's neighbours will always fear it, and that this fear cannot be eliminated. Rather, it must be accounted for and managed through realistic politics. Even where relations appear stable, as with the Central Asian republics, fears about Russian intentions linger. A few years ago, at the height of the pandemic, I conducted in-depth interviews in nearly all former Soviet countries (excluding Ukraine and Turkmenistan). Among political figures and academics, even the most intelligent ones, anxiety about Russia was palpable, either directly or indirectly. Russia knows that solving regional disputes by force is usually against its own interests. But it cannot assume neighbours see Moscow in the same way. Other states inevitably judge Russia by its history, its scale, and its power – and a great power can always be tempted by simple solutions. In today's volatile global environment, confidence in the future is a privilege enjoyed by very few. States like Russia, the USA, China, or India, thanks to their power, can be confident. Others, like Iceland or Liechtenstein, are too small to count. Even tiny Luxembourg must look over its shoulder at Germany and France. International law is no real guarantee. Major military powers, including Russia, do not grant indefinite security guarantees to countries on their doorstep. Geography is the second key factor. A state's position on the map shapes its destiny and its foreign policy. It is naive to suggest Russia should treat its neighbours as the United States treats Mexico or Canada. The American neighbours are effectively marooned on an island far from the world's main conflicts. They cannot look elsewhere for help in a dispute with the strongest power on earth, so they remain cautious. By contrast, Russia's neighbours have open borders in many directions and constant opportunities to hedge their positions. It is only natural they look for friends elsewhere to calm their fears. This is why Turkey is active in the South Caucasus, and, more discreetly, in Central Asia. The former Soviet republics see Turkish partnership as a safeguard, even though no one truly believes Ankara can match Russia's influence. Turkey lacks the financial means and strategic independence to replace Russia. But having Ankara nearby is useful leverage in dealings with Moscow – the same way some former Soviet republics use engagement with BRICS to negotiate with the West. This produces a dense and complicated web of relationships, where diplomats must do most of the heavy lifting. Nothing is simple or easy. For Russia, the shared geography and deep historical connections mean it cannot view its neighbours like any other states on the planet. Borders on the continent cannot be made impenetrable unless a country has ironclad internal controls, like China or North Korea. Russia's other neighbours are not built that way. They prefer openness with Russia, no matter the periodic tension. Russia's own identity also prevents a total break from its former Soviet neighbours. Russia is a multi-ethnic, multi-faith society. Its unity is built on cooperation among many groups, not rigid exclusion. A hard border with neighbours would inevitably lead to attempts to draw boundaries inside Russia itself – a dangerous path for a country whose main ethnic group must remain integrated and secure in a world full of threats. Historically, Russian rulers from the 15th century onward recruited people from the Golden Horde – their former enemies – to shore up manpower in a land of poor resources and harsh conditions. That pragmatic tradition continues today. Russia cannot cut itself off from the diasporas that grew out of centuries of common history. Policing them is the job of law enforcement, but no fence can change that legacy. This explains why Russia's relations with its neighbours will always carry an undercurrent of anxiety. It is happening with Azerbaijan today and will happen again elsewhere. Russia's patience is not infinite, but its statecraft is consistent, rooted in a realistic appreciation of its history, its geography, and its place in the modern world. Great powers must understand their neighbours' fears but not surrender to them. Russia should neither abandon its influence nor expect to be loved for it. Instead, it should manage the consequences of its size and power, and treat neighbourly fear as part of the price of being a giant. That is the task before Russian diplomacy – and a test of its ability to balance strength with responsibility in an ever more unstable world.
Russia Today
5 hours ago
- Russia Today
Iran moved its enriched uranium before US strikes
Last month's US strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities failed to hit the country's stockpile of highly enriched uranium, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh has claimed, citing US officials. The attack, which involved seven US B-2 'Spirit' bombers carrying 30,000-pound bunker busters, was not even expected to 'obliterate' the Iranian nuclear program, one of the journalist's sources admitted. 'The centrifuges may have survived and 400 pounds of 60% enriched uranium are missing,' one of the officials said, adding that the US bombs 'could not be assured to penetrate the centrifuge chamber . . . too deep.' The lack of radioactivity at the targeted Iranian nuclear sites – specifically Fordow and Isfahan – following the attack suggest that the enriched uranium stockpile had been moved ahead of time, one US official familiar with the matter said. Fordow, an underground complex built deep inside a mountain that many believed housed the stockpiles, was a particular focus of the attack. The US officials cited by Hersh nevertheless believe that the location of the stockpile and its fate are 'irrelevant' because of the serious damage the strike allegedly dealt to another Iranian nuclear site near the city of Isfahan. The goal of the operation was to 'prevent the Iranians from building a nuclear weapon in the near term – a year or so – with the hope they would not try again,' a US official told Hersh. This could translate into 'a couple of years of respite and uncertain future,' the official added. Following the strikes, US President Donald Trump claimed that the attack 'completely and totally obliterated' Iran's nuclear program. CIA Director John Ratcliffe also told lawmakers that several key sites had been completely destroyed and would take years to rebuild. However, intercepted communications suggested that Tehran had expected a worse impact from the strikes and that the real damage was limited, the Washington Post reported. The strikes were part of a coordinated American-Israeli military campaign launched in mid-June. The Israel Defense Force bombed Iranian targets, claiming that Tehran was close to being able to build a nuclear weapon. Hersh believes that Israel was the 'immediate beneficiary' of the US strike. West Jerusalem does not officially acknowledge possessing nuclear weapons. The Jewish State may still have up to 90 nuclear warheads at its disposal, according to a recent report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).
