Ukraine peace: Why France warns the US against a quick deal with Russia

And I'm joined here at the Munich Security Conference by Benjamin Haddad. He is France's minister for Europe. And we have some big issues to talk about with France, of course, as one of the leading forces in both NATO and the European Union. Thanks for joining us, Ben. Thanks for having me. So we've had some shocks here at the Munich Security Conference. And your president has described the interventions of Piet Hegseth at NATO as an electroshock for Europe. Of course, that was before the JD Vance speech. Would you say that this is just one more in a series of shocks for Europe? And what are the implications? This is indeed an electroshock. This is a wake-up call for Europeans. And this is a moment where we have to be united and step up, take matters into our own hands. We see the war of Russian aggression against Ukraine on our continent. We see the messages coming from the United States. And this is about our security as Europeans. Stepping up and increasing our defense spending, increasing our cooperation, and giving our selves the means to continue to support Ukraine as we're headed into this negotiation. A bad ceasefire, a bad negotiation, a capitulation for Putin would be in no one's interest, neither the United States nor Europeans. And this is what President Macron said in the Financial Times interview. He is also famously called NATO braindead. Would you consider this along the same lines? And was there a good outcome from that sort of, you know, kind of rhetoric? And would you expect the same this time? Look, at the end of the day, when you look at what Vice President Vance said yesterday, the rhetoric coming out of President Trump, you see the long-term trend of the United States, basically saying that they want to pivot to Asia. You see the protectionist trends. You see the hostile messaging. And I think what President Macron has always said is Europe needs to wake up from its vacation from history. You have tensions. You have geopolitical turbulence. You have a war of Russian aggression on our border. So it's up to us to take our destiny into our hand. So this means stepping up on defense and cooperation. This means finding new financing instruments at the European level. And we've been discussing this, of course, today at the Munich Security Conference. This has been also investing massively in our competitiveness, in our innovation and technology. We had this week the AI Summit, as you know, in Paris, where we announced massive investment in France and in Europe to support our tech ecosystem, our talents, our startups in AI and quantum, because also this is the condition of our sovereignty in the long run. We cannot afford to wait because the rest of the world is going fast. And there's a sense of urgency now. But France must be among them. You're not the highest spenders on defense. So is he talking about France as well? Well, over the two terms of the Macron presidency, we have doubled the defense spending. And even though now we have a budget with lots of budget cuts in different directions, we're preserving the defense budget because this is the condition of our security. We're above 2 percent. We've been participating to military operations both in Europe and in Africa. You know that France is the framework great nation and Romania has troops in Estonia within the NATO reassurance. But it's true. We all need to do more. We all need to increase our cooperation. We all need to invest more in the long run. And as we think about the security guarantees that we'll need to provide Ukraine to ensure the long-term stability and deterrence against further Russian aggression, European will also have to take their responsibility and face tough choices ahead. And this is why this moment is clearly an urgent wake-up call. Let's talk about those security guarantees, because Ukraine has a bilateral security guarantee with every member of NATO, as well as some other countries. What are those providing at the moment? And what more can you provide, especially with France always named as the leader in preparations for some kind of ground force, if there ever were a ceasefire to maintain? Well, I think the last part of your question is actually critical, right? Because first, let's make sure that we put Ukrainians in the best possible situation on the ground to reinforce their position for a negotiation. Because otherwise, you know, you just give in to Russia and to, even though they're escalating on the ground, even though they're keeping maximalist aims against Ukraine. So you can talk all you want, you can have the commentary you want, the reality will be on the ground. Let's continue to support Ukrainians and put them in the best possible situation. There can be no negotiation, no ceasefire without Ukrainians, who are the ones fighting and sacrificing, and without Europeans, because this is the security of Europe. But then the best way to ensure the stability of any kind of ceasefire is the question of security guarantees. And this is what we're also talking about with Ukrainians. You know, when I go to the different summits like this one, Ukrainians often talk about the Budapest Memorandum. You remember in the 90s, they were asked to give up their nuclear weapons from the USSR? And promised that they would be, their security would be guaranteed. Exactly, and promised security guarantees on their borders from Russia. And we all saw that these security guarantees were not credible, and Russia reneged on it. So the key also to long-term peace, to a stable peace, to the development and reconstruction of Ukraine, to the anchoring of Ukraine as a European democracy to our continent, will be also making sure that we have credible deterrence and security guarantees. And this will also be the responsibility of Europeans. But it's easy to say that we would need security guarantees for these troops on the ground. It's not easy to figure out how those would happen, especially now that the U.S. has ruled that out. Although, to be fair, you and I know the U.S. was never considered likely to put troops on the ground. But now that they have explicitly said, you can't be covered by Article 5 because this would not be a NATO operation. What are you guys thinking when you say France is making preparations? What could that possibly mean? How do you put soldiers there when you don't know how you could protect them? As I said, the first priority is to make sure that we put Ukrainians in the best possible position for a negotiation, right? So before even talking about this, let's first make sure that Ukrainians are in the best position on the ground for a ceasefire. But I would say, you know, you talk about the United States maybe not being committed or involved, but is it in the interest of the United States to have maybe Russia re-attack in a couple of years? Is it in the interest of the United States to have Russia rearm, redouble on its aggression? What kind of message and signal will that send to the rest of the world, to other theaters when you think about Asia, when you think about the credibility of U.S. power? So I think that's also a question that U.S. strategists and leaders will have to ask themselves. And those questions are being posed to them, but at the moment the answer is, we're not going. It's up to you, Europe. So what could it look like? I mean, you guys are supposed to have been thinking about this for quite a while. What are the possible configurations of such a force? Well, this is a conversation we'll have to have with other Europeans, with the Ukrainians as well, because this is really also about the security and sovereignty of Ukraine. As I said, they're the ones who are fighting, they're the ones who are dying, sacrificing not only for their freedom, democracy and sovereignty, but for ours, for our security as Europeans. And this is what will be committed in the long run. And with fears about a U.S. withdrawal in some ways, not a complete withdrawal from NATO perhaps, does this put more pressure on France as a nuclear power to perhaps consider extending the nuclear umbrella, which now comes from the United States, to actually centering that here? What are you guys thinking about that? It puts more pressure on all of us to step up. OK, well, that's a non-answer there, Minister Haddad. But final question. We could have had this conversation three years ago when the war started about Europe knowing it needed more defense spending, a lot of pressure now. That wasn't enough of a shock. That wasn't the shock that Europe needed. Is this new administration's rhetoric going to do more to unify Europe and strengthen Europe's resolve than the full-scale invasion of Ukraine? We could and should have had this conversation 30 years ago when we had a genocide on the European soil in Bosnia and we weren't able to stop it in Srebrenica. We could have had it in 2007 when Putin gave his infamous speech at the Munich Security Conference, in 2008 after the aggression on Georgia, or in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea and already the war through proxies in the Donbas. And we should have had it also in 2016 after the first Trump election, or maybe when President Obama did not intervene in Syria after the red line, or maybe when the Biden administration withdrew unilaterally from Afghanistan without telling European allies or did the IRA at the expense of European companies. OK, but you're making my point. What makes you think it will happen now? Well, there's a sense of urgency, but it's true. I mean, we need now this wake up. It's been too long. There's been a sense of denial for too long that we have a vacation of history, that war is away from Europe, that we can live with the dividends of peace. And we see now that we're under pressure, that others are accelerating, that we have war at our border. And now, you know, it's a time for Europe and we need to use this moment as an opportunity. But yes, you're right to underscore the sense of urgency. All right. Well, thank you very much. That's Ben Haddad, Minister for Europe, for France.