As reported by Michel Cabirol in an article published on the site latribune.fr, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs did not hide his annoyance, during his hearing before the Senate, at the unilateral reversal of position of the United States in Syria, which gave the green light to Turkish President RT Erdogan to initiate the military operation against Kurdish forces. According to Jean-Yves Le Drian, Europeans, including France, were surprised by such a change of position from Washington and President Trump, the repercussions of which today involve the security of all countries in the Middle East as well as European countries. According to the French minister, the American authorities had nevertheless given assurances to the Europeans, as well as to the members of the anti-Daesh coalition, and the sudden announcement of the withdrawal of American forces from the probable engagement zone was therefore taken by surprise all stakeholders, including Europeans.
Also during this hearing, JY Le Drian judged that the American withdrawal had benefited above all Russia, Syria of Bashar al Assad, and Iran, described by the very undiplomatic surname of “godfathers of Astana”. and the consequences of this decision will undermine Western relations with the countries of the Middle East, particularly vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia and Israel, who could well decide to act, also unilaterally, to ensure their security in the face of Iran, without taking into account calls for restraint coming from Washington and European capitals. By way of conclusion, the French minister questioned the reliability of the United States' commitment to ensuring collective security, to the point of damaging the transatlantic link.
The final judgment of the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, however, raises more questions than it provides answers. Indeed, it shows to what extent Europeans, including the French, have put themselves in situation of very strong dependence on American action to ensure their own security and the preservation of their interests. If the United States is a reliable and long-standing ally of European countries, they nevertheless have an agenda of their own, and a reading of different priorities from that of Europeans. In the midst of running for a second term, Donald Trump certainly does not want to see American soldiers killed or injured by a conflict between Turks and Kurds, all for a conflict in Syria which we do not really see how it could end well for the Western allies.
This observation must also, and without delay, lead to a realistic reflection on the needs in terms of military resources in France and in Europe, in order to be able to ensure the protection of the European territory, of Europeans themselves, of their interests, and this without depending on a decision or means coming from Washington. Let us recall in this respect that the main threat to the United States in the decades to come will be represented by China, and not Russia, as we have already discussed several times here. However, to be able to neutralize the threat of a country of 1,5 billion people, and whose GDP should catch up with that of the United States by 2040, Washington will needdevote all your resources to it, no longer able, therefore, to ensure the protection of Europeans as was the case for 70 years.
20 years is a short time when it comes to profoundly changing the format, organization and means of an armed force, even more so when it comes to doing it on a multi-national scale. . If JY Le Drian calls on the Russians to “take their responsibilities” in Syria in front of the French Senate, it would above all be imperative to call on Europeans to take their own responsibilities in matters of Defense, and on France, as a nuclear nation. and permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, to set an example, and initiate an ambitious and methodical plan to bring the format of the national armed forces to a level consistent with the reality of needs and threats.