МОСКВА, 09 февраля 2022, Институт РУССТРАТ. The urgent visit of the French president to Moscow and Kiev, the purpose of which, according to Emmanuel Macron himself, is "de-escalation and a search for political solutions to overcome the crisis”, very much resembles an attempt to break through on the diplomatic front. When, indeed, if not now? And who, if not Macron? In Europe, after Angela Merkel's leaving the post of Chancellor, there are no other politicians left who are able to speak with the president of Russia on the same level as her. Especially since the ground is prepared. At the level of the political advisers of the leaders of France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine, the resuscitation of the Normandy format has already taken place: the parties, after talking for eight hours in Paris at the end of January, agreed to continue the dialogue. And it should also happen this week in Berlin. However, the format is still being clarified. It is logical to assume that it will become clear following the results of Macron's blitz visits. A number of other circumstances also speak in favour of this theory. It is worth starting with the fact that such diplomatic breakthroughs are a bright tradition of French diplomacy, moreover - diplomacy at its highest level. Without going back to the times of Presidents Charles de Gaulle and Jacques Chirac, who repeatedly broke stereotypes and found a common language with Moscow - including in spite of Washington - it is worth remembering more recent examples. On the eve of Macron's visit to Moscow and Kiev in Paris, many recalled how President Nicolas Sarkozy successfully mediated between Moscow and Tbilisi in August 2008 and achieved the freezing of the military conflict that began after the attack of Georgian troops on South Ossetia. In this regard, one detail is important. France back then, as now, exercised the semi-annual presidency of the European Union, which, in fact, made it possible for Sarkozy to act not only on behalf of his country, but also on behalf of the EU. Now the situation is similar: Macron also acts both on behalf of France and on behalf of the EU. At the same time, he clearly demonstrates what the very strategic "European autonomy" is, which he proclaimed as one of the most important goals of his presidency. This project, by the way, greatly unnerves many politicians in eastern Europe. And this is understandable: they have settled in a "nation-centred" Europe, chained to the United States treating the EU as a "cash cow", and they are used to proving their need with crises - either a migrational or Ukrainian one. President Macron, in his speech on January 19 in Strasbourg, outlined other guidelines, talking about "a new order of security and stability in Europe”. Moreover, the conversation about "European autonomy" is actually just beginning. The initiator of the concept, of course, could not circumvent the crisis inflated around Ukraine. But there are no less fascinating plots ahead. Paris did not forget the American-Anglo-Australian front with AUKUS and the betrayal of the closest NATO allies hurt even more than the breakdown of the submarine contract. This was seen as a sign that the priority and geography of military alliances are changing. In what form, where and for whom NATO will continue to fight and whether it will become a "department" of AUKUS, is unclear. But by and large, Europe is simply doomed to create a "new order of security and stability." If it wants, of course, to remain an independent player in geopolitics. With this approach, the interest in dialogue with Moscow is objectively visible. In 2019, at a personal meeting with Vladimir Putin at Fort Brégançon, Macron, let me remind you, already proposed such a "strategic dialogue". It was envisaged, in particular, cooperation on Ukraine and Syria, disarmament in Europe, and progress towards the lifting of mutual sanctions. Since then, there have been no personal meetings, and Covid and the systematic escalation around Ukraine and, of course, the opposition of opponents of such a rapprochement have greatly slowed down the process. But they didn't cancel it. The new situation developing in Europe and the world has changed a lot of things and will continue to do it. There is no doubt, for example, that Paris noted the concern of the leaders of the Russian Federation and China, expressed in the joint declaration on the creation of AUKUS. Right before the visit, it became known that the presidents of Russia and France intended to discuss in Moscow the strategic security of Europe and Russia's concerns in connection with the current situation. However, the more serious and independent the EU-Russia dialogue is, the more serious the opposition to it will be. We are already seeing this: after the Normandy format meeting initiated by Macron in Paris on January 26, he came under unexpectedly harsh criticism from the French media, and even those that usually distinguish themselves in serious analytical approaches. This is a symptom. As well as the fact that the president did not just maintain his line on dialogue in the Normandy format, but developed it - up to a personal trip to Moscow. In general, the domestic political context of the French president's visit is fundamentally important this time. 60 days before the first round of the French presidential election (April 10), Emmanuel Macron is still not a candidate. Of course, he is leading in all polls and is confidently ahead of rivals who have already put forward their candidacies. But isn't it too risky to delay the candidacy nomination so much? And what if this or that event hits the rating? And such an event may well be the results of visits to Moscow and Kiev. If the president, who has made the EU presidency an important element of his election campaign, which has not yet officially begun, does not achieve a breakthrough, they will hang on to him immediately upon his return. Moreover, all of them – the analysts and thinkers, which from the beginning of the dialogue with Moscow accused Macron in the "weakening of Western solidarity", as well as those competitors who advocate an even more constructive and friendly dialogue with Moscow (Marine Le Pen, Eric Zemmour, Jean-Luc Mélenchon). It would be different if those visits will be translated into concrete results and will be enshrined in the Normandy format or some other one. The chances of re-election in this case will simply soar. But, even more importantly, it can give an impetus to personal leadership in a truly autonomous Europe, which Macron has long and consistently claimed. And Russia will get an interlocutor in Europe, which is so lacking after Merkel and who is also capable of taking responsibility and initiative in difficult situations. Elena Panina, Director of the RUSSTRAT Institute
