We had left him bitter, François Hollande. It was in the middle of the presidential election, in October 2021. He drew up the gloomy observation of a left in distress to the “Lilliputian” candidates. The former president, the last socialist, never gives up, it is well known. Neither politics nor the pen. In Upheavals, published by Stock editions, he gives his voice to the chapter of the new world which opens in the light of the war in Ukraine. “Europe as a whole has been put to sleep”, he laments, by Vladimir Putin of which he draws up an icy and implacable observation. And to call on the old continent to wake up, to reform, to tighten up. “An imperative, he says. Let’s avoid getting into overly complicated institutional machinery”.

Find the second part of our exclusive interview >> François Hollande: “Emmanuel Macron’s project is not up to standard”

L’Express: You have met Vladimir Putin many times, how do you deal with such a character?

François Hollande: Eyes open and hands steady. Vladimir Putin arouses fear, even if he exerts a strange seduction on some. He knows how to play both because his strategy has been worked out for a long time. Its ultimate goal is to reconstitute what the Soviet Union once was. It proceeds in stages: each time the United States or Europe offer it territory that can be covered by Russia, it occupies it. We saw it in Syria in 2013 or in Ukraine from 2014. Last February, few leaders had imagined that he could invade Ukraine and yet all the conditions were met for him to do so. We must therefore adapt our response to its belligerent actions, to its desire to challenge democracies and to expand Russia’s zone of influence throughout the world.

According to you, 2012 is a pivotal year in the new international disorder…

Yes, this is the year when Vladimir Putin returns to the presidency of Russia, after 5 years of semi-retirement, and when Xi Jinping takes over the leadership of China. Together, they will seal a great alliance described by the two heads of state as “eternal, unlimited, total”. A block was therefore formed in 2012. It has continued to consolidate since. Should we in turn make another one? Everything will depend on the will of the United States to remain present in Europe: the next American elections will enlighten us on this point. The real question is whether Europe itself is ready to defend itself? I believe that it can no longer remain in the state it is in, whether on the political, energy, economic, and a fortiori military levels.

In May 2015, you canceled the contracts for the two Mistral vessels sold to Russia. A gesture much criticized in the political class. Do you regret this lack of support?

I did not take this decision on a whim, but because there was a very serious breach of the rules of international law. The Crimea had just been annexed, and the Donbass occupied by the separatists. It was inconceivable for France to provide Russia with two helicopter carriers, which could be used to extend the operation then underway. In retrospect, imagine what these boats could have caused in terms of human damage in the current conflict! But strangely, rather than receiving unanimous support from the political class, my decision caused an “uprising of shields”. The LR spoke of a “stain on France’s word”, Jean-Luc Mélenchon went so far as to evoke an “unacceptable betrayal” and Marine Le Pen a “vassalization”, as if our links with Russia were in their eyes the outweigh solidarity with a country under attack.

Was President Emmanuel Macron right to try to renew the dialogue with Vladimir Putin?

When he invited him to Versailles in May 2017, then to Fort de Brégançon in September 2019, I was not unduly offended: it was completely logical to maintain relations between our two countries. Myself, throughout my tenure, I spoke to Vladimir Putin for hours, not to say entire nights. My question came from the words used by Emmanuel Macron in Brégançon, then at the conference of Ambassadors that followed, putting forward the idea of ​​an architecture of security and trust between the European Union and Russia, and affirming that the Europe could go from Lisbon to Vladivostok. It was an illusion! For Putin, this visit was a way to save time and cover his tracks.

During your meetings with Putin, were there things that alerted you?

The personal elements in diplomacy exist: there can be respect, sympathy, attention. Putin manifests, but the moment of the exchange is at the service of a long-term objective. He tries at each meeting to establish an almost physical relationship with his interlocutor and to multiply the digressions so as never to approach the essential. It alternates hot and cold, or rather hot and cold. We will have to talk to him again at some point. But from a balance of power. He is a soldier, hence the importance of the aid that the Europeans and the Americans bring to the Ukrainians. It can be economic: this is the role of the sanctions imposed on Russia. It must be political: by isolating Russia within the international community. Vladimir Putin, for his part, does not hesitate to use the energy weapon via the supply of gas and even the nuclear incident with the occupation of the Zaporijia nuclear power plant. This is why this idea according to which the thread of the dialogue must be preserved at all costs seems to me inappropriate, as long as Putin is not obliged to back down.

Would you say that Emmanuel Macron was duped by Putin?

It is rather Europe as a whole that has been put to sleep! Many shared this prediction that through economic exchange, political consultation or the integration of Russia into the major decisions of the world, peace and prosperity would be established mechanically: it was an irenic vision! Emmanuel Macron thought in good faith that it was possible to prevent the invasion of Ukraine. But when the Russian president, after obtaining the trusteeship of the former Soviet republics, that is to say Belarus, Kazakhstan and Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, and placed 100,000 soldiers on the border, there was no longer any doubt about what he was going to do: there was no longer any room for mediation. I want to believe that Emmanuel Macron has drawn the conclusion that there is no point in discussing with Putin when there is no possible outcome to the dialogue.

It’s the return to realpolitics…

Yes, based on power. It is not on the basis of good principles or common sense that diplomacy can manage to bend an interlocutor of the size of Russia who adopts an aggressive posture. For Europe, such a review will require increased military means. For the United States an awareness: I come back in my book to an essential event of this decade, when, in August 2013, the United States and the United Kingdom renounced to punish Bashar el Assad who used chemical weapons against his opponents. This retreat by Barack Obama, when he had made this act a “red line”, will have very serious consequences in Syria with the rise of Daesh and Russian intervention, but above all will convince Vladimir Putin that the West has now renounced the use of force. And when, a few years later, the Americans withdraw from Afghanistan, it is a signal of confirmation.

You have shown continuity in American foreign policy for ten years, despite very different presidential styles.

Yes, since the end of the war in Iraq, we have witnessed the gradual withdrawal of the United States from the international scene, with henceforth a prevalence of domestic political objectives and the pursuit of economic interests alone. However, faced with a belligerent attitude from Russia and aggressive behavior from China, President Biden is led to raise the level of his country’s intervention in the rest of the world: he commits very significant aid to support the Ukraine and does not shy away from confrontation with China, particularly in relation to the question of Taiwan. But the elections which will take place in November and then in 2024, in a particularly delicate context, marked by very high inflation, a risk of recession, tensions around taxation and public finances may, in the event of a Republican victory, have a fortiori that of Donald Trump, lead the United States to move away from European issues.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz has just delivered a very reform-minded speech for Europe and Germany. Do you share his proposals?

We, the French, must fully understand the extent of the change of course of our German friends: they want both to end their dependence on gas and oil from Russia, even if it means paying the price in terms of growth, engage in rearmament at a much higher budgetary level and build a Europe of defence. On the other hand, Olaf Scholz makes a more traditional proposal on the part of Germany, concerning the enlargement of the European Union to the Balkans. In return, he proposes to change the rules of the majority, in order to blow up unanimity on questions of foreign policy. This option is welcome, but it risks not having the expected success: changing the Union’s decision-making rules requires unanimity. It would therefore be necessary to ask countries which today have a right of veto to renounce it: it is a lost cause! Better to adopt another method. What I advocate is “enhanced cooperation”, it offers countries the possibility of further integration in areas such as defence, energy, taxation, and then of changing the decision-making rules. The treaties require that there be eleven for such a step forward, and that no country should be refused, as soon as it expresses its will: it is by this way and by no other that we will be able to circumvent the inevitable vetoes. .

A Europe-bis, therefore, at two speeds?

Yes, this idea is not new, but it still encountered German reluctance. However, with what has just happened on the military and energy levels, this closer Europe is an imperative!

You had said, before being elected, that you would renegotiate the European treaties, but you gave it up. Should it be done?

It would be desirable, but it is futile. When the question of revising the treaties was raised, thirteen countries out of the 27 protested against this temptation. Let’s be pragmatic: let’s keep the single market and the EU at 27 and create an avant-garde Europe with a few countries without the need for a general treaty, but only a treaty between the participants. To go quickly, let’s avoid getting into overly complicated institutional machinery.

The question of European integration has been tormenting people since almost Maastricht, thirty years ago. Is it still realistic, while the idea is growing among the peoples that we should regain sovereignty?

Yes, if we demonstrate that sovereignty presupposes solidarity, the example of the Euro is the most edifying since, at the start, in a few countries, a single currency was created, then, gradually, others have joined the euro zone. It is true, we have seen a rise in sovereignism and it is possible that this trend will continue in Italy or Sweden. But in this period of crisis, the working classes remained much more attached to Europe than the leaders of the extremist parties had imagined. The European dynamic obliges the sovereigntist parties to put a lot of water in their acid: they keep saying that, of course, they will not leave the European Union or the euro zone. In reality, Europe is the one that provides the best possible answer to the question everyone is asking: what protects us? Clearly, Europe protects on certain subjects more today than the nation-state, even if the latter is the framework in which democracy must find its expression.