what is “strategic ambiguity”, this military doctrine brandished by Emmanuel Macron?

The President of the Republic, who gives an interview Thursday evening on “8 p.m.” on France 2 and TF1 on the situation in Ukraine, used this concept to justify his comments on a possible sending of Western troops in support of kyiv.

“It’s not ambiguity (…), it’s serious and casual.” On the occasion of the debate organized Tuesday March 12 in the National Assembly on France’s support for Ukraine, the boss of the socialist deputies Boris Vallaud, like many opposition leaders, harshly judged the recent decision to Emmanuel Macron’s position on the conflict. The President of the Republic surprised observers by declaring on February 26, during an international conference bringing together kyiv’s allies, that sending Western troops to the country at war with Russia could not “be excluded”.

The head of state subsequently assumed the principle of “strategic ambiguity” regarding this deployment. While he must return to the subject during an interview broadcast live on “20 Heures” on France 2 and TF1, Thursday March 14, franceinfo returns to the principles of this military doctrine.

A principle closely linked to nuclear deterrence

Inherited from the theories of the Chinese general Sun Tzu exposed in The art of War in the 6th century BCE, “strategic ambiguity” was a basic principle of any confrontation with a foreign power. It consists of maintaining vagueness about the nature of the response. “Concretely, this means that we do not exclude anything, that we do not prohibit ourselves from using certain cards”explains to franceinfo Michel Goya, military historian and former colonel of the marine troops.

“It’s like a game of poker. It’s about making your opponent fold, without needing to show his cards, to show his aces.”

Michel Goya, military historian

at franceinfo

Concerning France, “strategic ambiguity” is closely linked to the principle of nuclear deterrence. “It’s about leaving it unclear when we can use nuclear weapons, because if we draw a precise line, that leaves the field open to the adversary,” continues Michel Goya. For the historian, “Lhe real question concerns the first use of nuclear weapons, because if the use comes second, everyone understands the logic of response. First, it is much more difficult, because it can result in a response from a nuclear power or a strong disapproval of the international community.”

For example, China has declared in its military doctrine that it will not use nuclear weapons first. But for its part, France has chosen to maintain this ambiguity. Thus, when Valéry Giscard d’Estaing declares in his memoirs (Power and lifevolume 2) that he would not have “Never” taken “the initiative of a gesture which would lead to the annihilation of France” – in other words, that he would never have pressed the button first –, “it weakens our deterrent capacity”believes Michel Goya.

“Keep your back” before toughening up the speech

It is in fact possible that Emmanuel Macron tried to toughen his speech towards Moscow, after declaring in October 2022 on France 2 that “fundamental interests” of France were not at stake in the event of a nuclear attack by Russia in Ukraine. A way of removing the strategic ambiguity which “had been criticized against him, and I think that this played a role in his last statements”believes Michel Goya.

Why did Emmanuel Macron attract so much criticism this time by wanting to reaffirm that “nothing [devait] be excluded” about sending ground troops? On the opposition side, we put forward the reactions of France’s allies, reluctant towards the Paris initiative. “Let us warn the President of the Republic about the dangers of isolation”explained in particular the deputy Bertrand Pancher, president of the Liot group in the Assembly. “The reservations expressed by our partners demonstrated that not everyone was on the same wavelength.”

“The repeated manifestations of a warlike posture and the lack of consultation with our partners constitute an error, a mistake and inconsiderate risk-taking.”

Cyrielle Chatelain, president of the environmental group

in the National Assembly

“The problem with a speech is that it will systematically affect several audiences. Emmanuel Macron may have wanted to send a message of firmness to Vladimir Putin’s Russia or a message of support for Ukraine, but that also affects public opinion. And when you want to launch an initiative, it is better to have your back, to ensure the reactionsanalyzes Michel Goya. In the end, the message is quite confusing, since some of its partners do not approve of it.”

The formula “ground troops” was immediately interpreted in a way “maximalist”, underlines the military historian. The Elysée was also forced to quickly clarify things, then mentioning the possible sending of “advisors” or“instructors”. “The President should have been much more precise straight away”, judge Michel Goya. Moreover, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky ruled out this possibility, declaring to the French on BFMTV: “Your children are not going to die in Ukraine.” For Emmanuel Macron, Thursday evening’s interview could be an opportunity to clarify French doctrine, while using a necessary “strategic ambiguity” in times of war on the European continent.