To the question "What does that mean in practical terms?", Emmanuel Macron answered by quickly mentioning several avenues: terrorism, frozen conflicts, cybersecurity. Surprisingly - given the differences over Syria and the limited Russian strikes against Daesh - he mentions terrorism as a subject "we’re aligned on". Beyond these avenues, the President imagines a kind of open-hearted dialogue with Putin: "What guarantee does he need? Is it in essence an EU and NATO guarantee of no further advances on a given territory? That's what it means. It means: what are their main fears? What are ours? How do we approach them together?”.

Why, there too, did the comments to The Economist provoke negative reactions in Europe?

There are undoubtedly subordinate reasons, the comfort of habits, the addiction to follow Washington, or the regret that the initiative came from a country like France, which is not most directly interested in the Russian question (the relationship with Russia has much less impact here than in Germany or Poland).

The reaction of Donald Tusk, as he takes over the leadership of the EPP, is symptomatic of a deeper misunderstanding: "And this is why when I hear Macron's words, that ‘we must reconsider our position with Russia, to rethink the strategic relationship’, I can only express hope that it will not happen at the cost of our common dreams about Europe's sovereignty". The President having expressed, in his interview, the wish that Viktor Orbán will help him convince the Poles, Mr. Tusk answered "Maybe, but not me, Emmanuel".

What is striking in Mr Macron's analyses is a business like vision of Russia, the rationality he lends to the Kremlin's decision-makers. A large part of European opinion - not only in Poland and the Baltic States but also in the Scandinavian countries and Germany - sees first and foremost the actions of a hostile state which hostility is not grounded in supposed Western political errors, nor in historical reasons, but in both current and systemic motives of building an opposite system to the Western model. Russia’s real face for our neighbours shows itself in the annexation of Crimea, which Mr Macron mentions incidentally, although it represents the negation of the "humanist Europe" he supposedly incarnates. The wound is still open for countries that are geographically closer.

Which European leader does Emmanuel Macron want to be?

The interview of the French President with The Economist reveals a double paradox. First, the negative reactions to it in Europe may have more to do with form than substance. They may in fact reveal a higher degree of consensus than we think on a number of issues: NATO, the necessary strategic autonomy, technological sovereignty, and even the opportunity for a calculated opening towards Russia. The paradox would be that by saying out loud what many people only whisper, Emmanuel Macron, by the brutality of his expression and a certain clumsiness, has pushed back the emergence of a broad intra-European agreement; the hope is that, on the contrary, when the dust will have settled, probably once the NATO summit test has passed, a more in-depth debate will take place among Europeans on the vital issues raised by the President.

The second paradox is the obvious vocation of Emmanuel Macron as the European leader, and not only by default, in contrast to the unilateralism he seems to be practising more and more (forced formation of the new European Commission, dialogue with Russia, enlargement, and now NATO). How can the French President drag the Europeans behind him if he treats them with such little care? Can we build Europe on a basis that would only be French? The most scathing comment in this regard came from a Russian journalist, Vladimir Frolov, in an article for the Moscow Times on November 14. The editorial writer believes that "French President Emmanuel Macron has taken the baton from Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump to become the main destabilizing force in Europe and the destroyer of the Western world order". This commentator considers that the French President's geo-strategic vision largely overlaps with that of President Putin, for example with regard to the West's responsibilities in destabilising the Arab world, and the resulting migration crisis, or the role of the United States in conflict with Russian interests in Europe.

However, Vladimir Frolov concludes that "if Macron is on our side", this is no reason for Moscow to be favourable to him because he "is viewed as a political lightweight by the Kremlin" and "that his ideas will most likely find no support from other European allies, primarily Germany".