Macron to raise defence targets, citing Russia threat
"We are living a pivotal moment," Macron said in a speech to the armed forces on the eve of the national Bastille Day holiday, denouncing "imperialist policies", "annexing powers" and the notion that "might is right", all a reference to Russia.
"Never has peace on our continent depended to such an extent on the decisions that we take now," said Macron.
France faced the challenge "of remaining free and masters of our destiny", he added.
Macron said France's defence budget should rise by 3.5 billion euros ($4.1 billion) in 2026, and then by a further three billion euros in 2027.
- 'Present at their battle stations' -
"If you want to be feared, you must be powerful," he said, calling for "mobilisation" for national defence by all government departments.
"Everyone must be present at their battle stations," Macron said.
"We are still ahead, but if we remain at the same speed we will be overtaken tomorrow," he added.
French military and security officials have been warning of global threats weighing on France, with Defence Chief of Staff Chief Thierry Burkhard saying on Friday that Russia posed a "durable" threat to Europe and that the "rank of European countries in tomorrow's world" was being decided in Ukraine, invaded by Russia in 2022.
Russia currently views France as its "main adversary in Europe", Burkhard said.
He also warned of the consequences of a diminished US commitment to Europe, along with cyber threats, disinformation campaigns and the risk of terror attacks.
"We have to take account of the fact that there has been a change in strategic parameters," he said.
On Sunday, Defence Minister Sebastien Lecornu weighed in, telling the La Tribune weekly newspaper that "it's our job to provide answers".
France needed to make "a new effort" if it wanted to "depend on nobody" in the future, the minister said.
France's defence budget has already increased sharply since Macron took power, rising from 32.2 billion euros ($37.6 billion at current rates) in 2017 to 50.5 billion currently, and is projected to reach 67 billion euros in 2030.
- 'Sacrosanct' defence budget -
If confirmed, the major defence spending boost could, however, threaten French efforts to cut deficits and reduce its debt mountain, amid pressure from the EU Commission on Paris to impose more fiscal discipline.
The servicing of France's debt alone will cost the Treasury 62 billion euros this year.
But Prime Minister Francois Bayrou, who on Tuesday is to outline his budget plan for 2026, has declared the defence budget to be "sacrosanct" and exempt from budgetary cuts.
In Sunday's speech, Macron rejected any financing of the additional defence spending through additional debt.
Several NATO countries are boosting their military spending, after the alliance's members agreed last month to spend five percent of their gross domestic product (GDP) on security.
Britain aims to increase its defence budget to 2.5 percent of GDP by 2027, and to 3.0 percent after 2029. Germany plans to reach a defence budget of 162 billion euros by 2029, equivalent to 3.5 percent of its GDP, while Poland already dedicates 4.7 percent of GDP to defence.
"Very clearly, we need to revise our programming and strategy today, in light of the changing nature of risks," Macron said on Thursday.
Lecornu this month detailed the most urgent needs for the French armed forces, including ground-to-air defences, ammunition, electronic warfare and space capabilities.
In Sunday's interview, he said France was mostly worried about falling behind in "disruptive technologies" including artificial intelligence and quantum technology.
Beyond budget increases, the French government is also seeking to boost "national cohesion" in the face of global crises, Elysee officials said.
Macron is expected to outline a potential mobilisation drive for young people who should be given "an opportunity to serve", Elysee officials said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bangkok Post
a day ago
- Bangkok Post
Should the US join China's WWII event?
The latest Victory Day parade in Moscow marking the 80th anniversary of Germany's independence defeat in May will be bookended in the upcoming September with a commemorative parade at Tiananmen Square in Beijing marking the defeat of Japan. Of the "Big Five" victor nations, only the leaders of China and Russia will be on the rostrum, with no confirmed plans for US, UK or French leaders to attend. Two leading Chinese opinion leaders, Jin Canrong of Renmin University, formerly of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and Wang Xiangwei, former editor of the South China Morning Post, have suggested that China should invite the US to join the event at Tiananmen. This tantalising possibility was flagged by internet maven Wang Zichen in his Pekingnology newsletter Nice try, guys. This is a bold gesture at a time of immense diplomatic turmoil, a time when it's worth a try to think out of the box, but it's unlikely to work. Any gathering at which Vladimir Putin is party to will project mixed messages and crossed signals at odds with the spirit of the original victory against global fascism. Winners of the war never tire of the narrative that Germany and Japan were the bad guys, on the wrong side of history, but both those countries have transformed themselves beyond recognition. The Soviet Union and the United States emerged triumphant in 1945, of course, with immense leverage between them in shaping the peace of the post-war world order. But the fleeting solidarity enjoyed in that moment of victory was frittered away as the two very different nations turned competitors, contenders and Cold War adversaries in the rush to determine who controlled what and where and on whose terms. China was on the winning side, but its legacy is most pronounced as a victim nation. Its losses under Imperial Japanese aggression were among the most catastrophic in history, with estimates of 35 million dead or more, and while it is natural that China should want to celebrate the moment that the horror of Japanese occupation ended, China did not end it. Some will argue the horrific bomb dropped on Hiroshima did the job, others credit the Soviet Union's late but formidable arrival in Manchuria. Chinese of all political factions fought bravely and made great sacrifices, but China was part occupied, part battleground and part rump state. The KMT in Chungking offered continuity of governance, but were not winners on the battlefield. Chiang Kai-shek's family ties and diplomatic links to the US gave him a seat at the table at the Cairo Conference and subsequent discussions about reordering a broken world order. It is fitting and proper that China should be among those who salute the march of history in 1945. But what about Britain? Under Winston Churchill's leadership, the UK correctly perceived Adolf Hitler to be the enemy of all mankind, even before the Nazi's went on the rampage and began to pound London with bombs. In the face of an insuperable threat, the UK, like China, did its best to delay the march of armies it couldn't singlehandedly stop. What both did, significantly, was to communicate to the world that fascism was everyone's struggle. Long before the US entered either the Pacific or Atlantic theatre of the war, Washington was beseeched with pleas from old friends in both China and England to pay attention, to lend support, to get involved. Both frontline countries did much to convince the more powerful but geographically isolated US to join in. Of the five big powers, France got a seat at the table despite its collaboration with the Nazis because of Charles de Gaulle's guerrilla war against the Nazis. France surrendered to Nazi occupation under the guise of cooperation, only to turn on them when US intervention became a game-changer. A similar pattern of biding time took place in the vast swathes of China. Much of the coast was occupied directly by Japan, such as in Manchuria, or indirectly ruled under the aegis of pro-Tokyo collaborationist Wang Jingwei. Today, as several serious regional wars are already raging across the globe, the spectre of world war cannot be entirely dismissed. Commemoration of World War II can offer a useful perspective if the ceremonies are not hijacked for partisan benefit or are tone-deaf to the past. The presence of Mr Putin as a guest of honour at the Beijing parade, presents a problem. No one can deny the great contribution to victory that was made by the USSR in bringing the World War to an end in 1945, but the past is another country. Furthermore, the absence of the US, Britain and arguably France, makes for a lopsided affair. It becomes instead a commemoration of convenience, serving present needs without really taking an honest look at what the fight against fascism was fighting against. In the Western press, Mr Putin has been compared to Hitler, and as historically inaccurate as that may be, Mr Putin did recently invade Ukraine upon which he continues to wreak death and sow hatred. Russia's blatant aggression has put all of Europe on edge, setting into motion some of the same dynamics seen in continental Europe when the Allies grappled with the rising German threat of the 1940s. Another reason why it's worth being sceptical about the US joining China and Russia to praise the heroism of a bygone struggle against fascism is the confused state of affairs in the US at this time. Donald Trump, self-styled strongman leader of the US, has introduced elements of fascism to his authoritarian ruling style at home and abroad. Oblivious to the nuances of history, he recently crowed about the success of his attack on Iran, comparing it to dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Finally, there is the question of where Germany and Japan, the two aggressor nations so soundly defeated by the Allies and Soviets in 1945, stand in today's world. It's one thing to crow about victory over the bad guys while the smoke is still clearing, but the smoke cleared 80 years ago and the world is a very different place now, with Germany and Japan rule-bound, cooperative, diplomatic and peace-abiding. Sad to say, the two aggressor states of World War II are in many ways exemplars of the post-war peace, while the Allied victors, especially Russia and the US, are looking more and more like aggressors these days.
Bangkok Post
4 days ago
- Bangkok Post
EU readies retaliatory list targeting US services
BRUSSELS — The European Union (EU) executive is preparing a list of proposed restrictions on US services companies -- including tech giants -- should Brussels fail to strike a trade deal with Washington, European diplomats said on Thursday. United States President Donald Trump blindsided the EU earlier this month by threatening to slap 3% tariffs on the bloc's goods, despite months of talks to get an agreement. If they don't clinch a deal by Aug 1, Brussels has warned it will have no choice but to retaliate against Trump's steep levies because of their economic impact, and has drawn up two lists of US goods to target. The European Commission, steering trade policy for the 27-country bloc, is also working on a list of American services -- including financial services -- it could hit with restrictions, for example on public procurement, EU diplomats said. It could also mean excluding certain suppliers, one diplomat said, adding that the commission had not yet put forward any list to EU member states. Any action on services would be in addition to two sets of retaliatory tariffs on goods: one put forward this week that targets €72 billion (US$83 billion) of US products, and another worth €21 billion, drawn up in response to steel and aluminium tariffs. One EU diplomat said the bloc could retaliate step-by-step, hitting the United States with first the smaller, then the larger counter tariffs on goods -- before potentially escalating to services. The official also stressed the EU had yet to even approve the measures by vote and that they could still change, but another diplomat said Brussels would have no choice but to respond "forcefully". Most EU member states want to keep options on the table but have backed the commission's attempts to try once again to get an agreement before firing off retaliatory measures. The EU's top trade negotiator, Maros Sefcovic, jetted to Washington on Wednesday for talks with his US counterparts but the commission did not provide details on meetings. There are questions over Europe's appetite for a damaging fight with Trump if he slaps on the 30% levies as promised. But France has been pushing for Brussels to take a harder line and consider deploying its most powerful trade tool, known as the anti-coercion instrument, if negotiations with the United States end in disappointment. Even if Brussels were to activate this so-called trade "bazooka", it could take months before any measures were taken, according to the rules. First, the commission would have four months to investigate the third country it accuses of detrimental trade policies -- then member states would have eight to 10 weeks to back any proposal for action.
Bangkok Post
5 days ago
- Bangkok Post
EU mega-budget draws immediate German opposition
BRUSSELS - The European Union executive on Wednesday proposed a 2-trillion-euro long-term budget focused on tackling overseas competition and Russian aggression, but it was quickly shot down by Germany, the bloc's largest member. Germany said it was 'unable to accept' the $2.3-trillion budget for 2028-34, which EU chief Ursula von der Leyen called 'the most ambitious ever proposed'. Farm unions also quickly came out against proposed reforms to the bloc's huge agriculture subsidies. The plan seeks to bolster Europe's security and ramp up competitiveness, against a backdrop of soaring trade tensions with the United States, while paying off debts from a massive Covid-era loan. The European Commission put 451 billion euros on the table under a broad 'competitiveness' tag that encompasses defence and space — together allocated 131 billion euros, a five-fold increase. The budget earmarks up to 100 billion euros for the reconstruction of war-torn Ukraine — as well as substantial new 'flexibility' funds kept available in event of crises. But German government spokesman Stefan Kornelius said in a statement that 'a comprehensive increase in the EU budget is not acceptable at a time when all member states are making considerable efforts to consolidate their national budgets.' Germany also opposed the commission call to make companies with a turnover of more than 100 million euros pay more tax. While Germany says the budget is too large, many EU lawmakers accuse it of not leaving sufficient funds for priorities such as climate adaptation and the agriculture subsidies that make up the biggest share of the budget. Budget commissioner Piotr Serafin said under the commission's plans, 300 billion euros would remain to support farmers — against around 387 billion euros, of which 270 billion in direct payouts, under the current seven-year budget. 'Black Wednesday for farmers' Brussels says there would be an overhaul of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) subsidies — with some funding moved to other budget columns. But the future of the CAP is headed for a fight, with farmers warning against cuts to their slice of the EU pie — and marching Wednesday in Brussels to show their resolve. Hundreds of European farmers joined a protest outside the commission building in Brussels organised by a pan-European agriculture lobby group, Copa-Cogeca. The group described it as a 'Black Wednesday' for farmers, accusing Brussels of seeking to 'dismantle the 'common' nature of the CAP through concealed budget cuts'. The warning raised the spectre of another confrontation after last year's protests across Europe by farmers upset at cheap imports, low margins and the burden of environmental rules. Hungary, a staunch critic of Brussels and Russia's closest ally in Europe, meanwhile tapped into the rural anger ahead of the plan's release — while slamming the money for Kyiv. 'Ukraine would get a massive funding boost, while European farmers lose out,' Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said. Battle lines drawn The announcement sets the stage for two years of fraught negotiations between the European Parliament and 27 member states. Already stretched thin, some states, such as Germany, are unwilling to contribute more to the common pot. Unlike in the previous budget, the EU has debts due from the Covid pandemic, when states teamed up to borrow 800 billion euros to support the bloc's economy. These are estimated to cost 25-30 billion euros a year from 2028. The previous 2021-27 budget was worth around 1.2 trillion euros and made up from national contributions and money collected by the EU such as customs duties. National contributions will grow slightly, from 1.13% of member states' gross national income to 1.15% plus 0.11% devoted to repaying the Covid loan. The commission will also seek to raise about 58 billion euros a year collecting money directly through five instruments, including its carbon border tax and a levy on electronic waste. Member states gave a sneak peek at the fights to come. France's Europe minister Benjamin Haddad hailed the commission's 'ambition' but Dutch finance minister Eelco Heinen — representing one of the frugal states — said the proposed budget was 'too high'. Members of the EU parliament, however, made it clear the budget was not enough in their view. 'However you try to package this, what we have is a real-terms investment and spending freeze,' said a joint statement from the EU lawmakers tasked with steering the budget through parliament.
