How NATO tightened its belts. France's withdrawal from the military organization

On February 21, 1966, the President of France announced the country's withdrawal from the North Atlantic Alliance. For General de Gaulle, this operation was "the last major battle"

Since the creation of NATO in 1949, France has been one of its main participants. The country had certain grounds for joining this organization.

First, Second World War and the German occupation caused enormous damage to the country, the economy was seriously undermined and France was forced to agree to the Marshall Plan. The plan for economic assistance to Western European countries affected by the war was nothing more than a tool cold war USA against the USSR and at the same time was a powerful tool to strengthen the dollar as an international currency. But for a weakened France, such a plan was the only way out of the crisis.

Secondly, the formation of the North Atlantic Alliance took place in the conditions of the already established model of a bipolar world order. France, as a country of the capitalist type, automatically became an ally of the United States.

Therefore, for France, cooperation with overseas and European partners in the economic and military spheres was inevitable. The move in 1952 of the NATO headquarters from London to Paris symbolized the inviolability of the presence of the military bloc on the continent.

Meanwhile, the initial dominance of the US and, to a lesser extent, the UK in the Alliance structures was evident. These trends were not hidden, moreover, the United States, which bore the bulk of the costs of the USSR's nuclear deterrence, increased its influence on the allies.

This situation was contrary to the national interests of France and could not help but worry French President Charles de Gaulle, who was firmly heading towards restoring France's role as a world power.

Nuclear developments have become another problem. Soviet Union, including the creation of ballistic missiles capable of hitting targets not only in Europe but also in America. In this case, France could become a hostage to American political games. Therefore, de Gaulle began a program for the country's gradual exit from the Alliance.

Back in the late 1950s, Americans were forbidden to have on bases in France nuclear weapon. In 1958, the US government was denied permission to deploy ballistic missiles medium range in French territory. The French fleet was withdrawn from NATO command: first in the Mediterranean, and in the summer of 1963 in the Atlantic.

“The participation of this or that state in NATO, where the Americans are undividedly in command, can easily involve this state, against its will, in a dangerous military adventure,” - with these words, the French president justified his decision to withdraw the country from the military structure of NATO, taken after a visit to USSR, where he was shown the capabilities of Soviet rocket technology.

On February 21, 1966, France withdrew from NATO. In an official note, the government of Georges Pompidou announced the evacuation of 29 bases with 33,000 personnel from the country.

Unfortunately, after de Gaulle's departure from politics, all subsequent leaders of France followed in the wake of subjugation to the United States; in 2009, Paris completely returned to all structures of the North Atlantic Alliance.

One wise man said: "Diplomacy is the same war, but without weapons." The diplomatic war between Russia and France has been going on for three hundred years. In this war, there were both victories and defeats on both sides, there were years of friendship and tough confrontation. All this continues to this day with varying degrees of success. There is no country in the world with which Russia would have such an interesting diplomatic history as with France. I will talk about one episode from our diplomatic relations with the Fifth Republic. I think it will be interesting. So let's go!

Our compatriot Khasanbiy Geshev, an eyewitness of the events, told me about this story. He, at that time being "Vanka-platoon", painted (namely painted) the grass at the Baikonur Cosmodrome. Which gave the President of France a reason to declare upon his return to his homeland: "The smell of fresh paint haunted me everywhere in Russia."
And more seriously, a little background.

1966 Military planes of NATO countries fly over Europe with nuclear bombs on board. A collision over the Spanish village of Polomaress kills seven people and loses a hydrogen bomb.

On February 28, a detachment of nuclear submarines of the USSR Navy completed a one and a half month round-the-world passage without surfacing, having passed the most difficult for navigation, especially underwater, teeming with icebergs, the Drake Strait. There is a heated confrontation in the world: NATO - Warsaw Pact. It was a time when something had to be done, to introduce, as the title of de Gaulle's first book, Discord in the Camp of the Enemy, put confusion into the camp of a potential enemy. Carry out, as they say now, a diplomatic special operation.

Chinese wisdom says: "If it is impossible to defeat two tigers, smart monkey break them up." Of all the prominent figures of that time, General de Gaulle was more suitable for the role of the "sacrificial tiger". Bright personality, a contradictory figure. A man of outstanding virtues and equally outstanding flaws in character.

And it happened that at that time his visit to the Soviet Union was planned. The guest had to be received with dignity and prestige for the country. Why was developed a simple in its genius plan: to show de Gaulle Baikonur! This idea was expressed by Alexei Nikolaevich Kosygin, who knew the general well, about whom Charles de Gaulle said: “This engineer, Minister of Planning, inspired respect with his intelligence, deep knowledge of the resources and needs of his country. And which can change a lot for the better not only in the country's economy, but also in Soviet-French relations.

According to the program last day During the stay of the President of France, they are taken to Novosibirsk, they show Akademgorodok, laboratories, and bright experiments are carried out in his presence. Madame Yvonne de Gaulle is presented with Yakut diamonds. passes cultural program with a visit to the theatre.

The next morning, two planes are ready to take off, in the first plane, diplomats, Soviet and French journalists accompanying the President of France. After the plane with all this retinue flies safely, de Gaulle is offered to see Baikonur. And a radio message flies aboard one of the planes: "Due to a minor breakdown, the second plane is forced to land at an intermediate airfield." Finally, the liner heads for Baikonur, which was admired by the whole world. Prior to this event, no foreigner had set foot on this earth. Many dreamed of getting into the holy of holies of the Soviet defense industry, and not only the presidents, but also the main spies of our friendly and not quite friendly countries - neighbors on the planet. And therefore it is not surprising that de Gaulle responded to the proposal made by Alexei Nikolaevich. Yes, it could not be otherwise. After all, he was a brilliant military theorist, an innovator who, even before the war, wrote eight monographs on military development. One of them, called "For professional army”, read Hitler, Keitel, Bruchitsch, Guderian. This monograph was also published here in the USSR in a circulation of 800 copies. In the monograph, de Gaulle predicted the entire course of the Second World War long before it began.

By the arrival of the general, Baikonur had changed. It was temporarily renamed Zvezdagrad, asphalt was laid throughout the city. They built a new railway line and a station called Degolyevka. The Commander-in-Chief of the Missile Forces, Nikolai Krylov, was extremely brief: “Just as a theater begins with a hanger, so does a training ground with general view. I remind you: the balconies were not painted for drying clothes, I will check everything personally.

And now, met by enthusiastic residents, de Gaulle rides through the streets. Touched by the warm welcome, he stops the car several times, goes out to meet those who meet him, shakes hands with them, hugs them.

De Gaulle stayed at the spaceport for four hours, watching the launch of three rockets. The first was a weather satellite. This was her fifth launch, the previous four were unsuccessful. But on June 25, the launch went brilliantly. The general was told that this was the Cosmos 122 satellite, and that within an hour it would survey 25 million kilometers. earth's surface. Two more have been launched combat missiles R-16U. Even on TV it is a very exciting sight. Imagine: the covers of the mine installation open. Huge tongues of flame burst out of the gas ducts, the earth shudders, the rocket leaves the installation. There is a deafening roar of engines, rolling rocket thunder drowns out everything around. An incomparable spectacle even for those who watch this picture dozens of times. And what about others! With an interval of several minutes, the next rocket is launched. And everything repeats.

The President of France, forgetting his inherent arrogance and snobbery, repeats admiringly: “Colossus! Colossus! As a military man, de Gaulle could not but appreciate the strength and power of this weapon. Worried, he asks Brezhnev:

Is it true that these missiles are aimed at Paris?

They are aimed at where the troops of our potential opponents are based, - Leonid Ilyich answered without diplomacy.

After the demonstration of rocket technology, a solemn reception was held in honor of the high French guest's stay in Zvezdograd. And everyone who was present at the reception noted: the general was the embodiment of greatness and thoughtfulness.

Returning to France, the president announced that France was withdrawing from the NATO military organization. Until April 1, 1967, all 29 foreign bases with 23,000 soldiers and officers are removed from its territory. The headquarters of NATO was also withdrawn from Paris.
Judging by the results, it was a great victory Soviet diplomacy.

Since the creation of NATO in 1949, France has been one of its main participants. The country had certain grounds for joining this organization.

Firstly, the Second World War and the German occupation caused enormous damage to the country, the economy was seriously undermined and France was forced to agree to the Marshall Plan. The plan for economic assistance to Western European countries that suffered during the war was nothing more than an instrument of the US Cold War against the USSR and at the same time was a powerful tool to strengthen the dollar as an international currency. But for a weakened France, such a plan was the only way out of the crisis.

He proposed to the Anglo-Saxons a model of equal decision-making on key issues related to the use of nuclear weapons (a tripartite directorate of the United States, France and Britain), in which each of the three powers would have the right to veto the use of nuclear weapons, but the United States refused it.

Another problem was the nuclear developments of the Soviet Union, including the creation of ballistic missiles capable of hitting targets not only in Europe, but also in America. In this case, France could become a hostage to American political games. Therefore, de Gaulle began a program for the country's gradual exit from the Alliance.

Back in the late 1950s, Americans were prohibited from having nuclear weapons at bases in France. In 1958, the US government was denied permission to deploy medium-range ballistic missiles on French soil. The French fleet was withdrawn from NATO command: first in the Mediterranean, and in the summer of 1963 in the Atlantic.

“The participation of a state in NATO, where the Americans are in absolute command, can easily involve this state, against its will, in a dangerous military adventure,”- with these words, the French president justified his decision to withdraw the country from the military structure of NATO, made after a visit to the USSR, where he was shown the capabilities of Soviet missile technology.

On February 21, 1966, France withdrew from NATO. In an official note, the government of Georges Pompidou announced the evacuation of 29 bases with 33,000 personnel from the country.

France's relationship with the North Atlantic Alliance holds a special place in French history. This is primarily due to the fact that, as a founding member of the Alliance, France has not always supported NATO's actions. Her position was largely influenced by the rapidly changing situation in the world political arena.

European countries, including France, sought to protect themselves from the "communist threat" from the Soviet Union by creating a mechanism for military and political cooperation. In addition, France was also worried about the German threat associated with the possibility of the revival of West Germany, which was sought by the British and American sides. Consideration should also be given to the complex economic situation France after World War II. The creation of this kind of Alliance allowed her to "jump on the bandwagon of the outgoing train" as one of the world's leading players.

Each of the countries Western Europe, which became a member of NATO, was ready to contribute to the development of the Organization, but they had different attitudes towards the role of NATO. This fact clearly demonstrate the positions of France and Great Britain. The UK initially advocated that the US presence in Europe is a key factor in the development of integration processes that cannot expand without strengthening ties with the US. In turn, France was based on the fact that such a strengthening of the United States would put the countries of Europe in a subordinate position, and would also contribute to the delimitation of the positions of European countries. It was France that did not share the optimism that the US intentions lie exclusively in the plane of ensuring European security and was not optimistic in recognizing the exclusive role of NATO in this area.

This became evident as early as 1966, when France withdrew from the Military Planning Committee and the Nuclear Planning Group. The United States insisted on the deployment of NATO military bases in France, as well as on the transfer of part of the country's military contingent under NATO patronage, which, of course, ran counter to France's "independence" policy. In addition: “while France left NATO (1966), it actively opposed US aggression in Indochina in the 1960s, condemned US aggression in Vietnam, provided military-technical assistance to Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos . Moreover: France and the USSR were negotiating a military-political alliance.

Early 1990s became a new milestone in the history international relations. The dissolution of the Department of Internal Affairs, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the end of the Cold War - all this influenced the balance of power on the world stage. Against the backdrop of these events, the countries that are members of NATO faced the question of maintaining or dissolving the Organization. The Alliance has actually lost the meaning of its existence, there has been a crisis of its identity.

There were several options for further developments. “... Dissolve NATO after the Warsaw Pact; put NATO under the control of the OSCE and give it the military mechanisms that NATO possessed; maintain NATO in its current capacity as a military-political bloc with limited membership, while expanding its functions and geographical scope beyond the Euro-Atlantic region. The dissolution of NATO was not beneficial to either the United States or European countries due to the fact that the collapse of the Soviet Union led to instability in the international situation and the preservation of the bloc was supposed to be a guarantee of security in the Euro-Atlantic region. The second option was more preferable, but also did not find support from the United States, which initially intended to follow the third path.

NATO expansion should be viewed as a three-level one, because expansion means not only a quantitative increase in the Alliance's members, but also an expansion of NATO's functions and areas of responsibility. Under the Treaty Establishing the North Atlantic Alliance, NATO is an open organization, which can be joined by other members that are not founding countries. This is enshrined in Article 10 of the Treaty: “The contracting parties may, by common consent, propose to any other European state capable of developing the principles of this Treaty and contributing to the security of the North Atlantic region to accede to this Treaty…”. That is why the question of quantitative expansion has legal grounds from a legal point of view.

With regard to the changing functional role of NATO, the 1991 Strategic Concept of the Alliance should be noted here. According to this concept, “... NATO's security must be built taking into account the global context ... and broader dangers, including WMD proliferation, disruptions in the supply of vital resources and acts of terrorism and sabotage…”. From this we can conclude that NATO is not only ready to adapt to new security threats, but also sees itself as the main actor in solving these problems. But the main thing that was reflected in the concept is the expansion of the range of issues that were not previously resolved within the framework of NATO structures.

The question of expanding NATO's zone of influence developed according to a similar scenario. In the context of this expansion provision, military operations are carried out outside the Alliance's area of responsibility. This was first included in the NATO Strategic Concept in 1999. The expansion was due to the fact that the concept, in addition to political aspects, considered the “right” to conduct military operations around the world at the discretion of the Alliance. This is enshrined in Clause 3 of the Concept, which defines: "the creation of a Euro-Atlantic security structure in which NATO plays a central role."

NATO expansion should be viewed in the context of integration processes in Europe. The reason for this lies, first of all, in the fact that the European Union needed NATO's help in providing a security line that would guarantee protection from the unstable situation prevailing in the CEE countries after the elimination of the Warsaw Pact.

By the time NATO expanded to the East at the expense of the CEE countries, J. Chirac was in power in France, having won the presidential election in 1995. There were some changes in the country's foreign policy. In the highest echelons of power, talk began that new President will return France to the military structures of NATO and agree to the transfer of a certain amount of the French military contingent under the patronage of the forces of the Alliance. But all these statements were made during the election race, and when it ended and victory was already in hand, J. Chirac actually abandoned the Atlantic course. J. Chirac was sure that if the United States was allowed to extend its hegemony to the East, soon all-European security would only decline, and European security projects would remain on paper. Thus, the position of France after J. Chirac took office became ambivalent. The President tried, on the one hand, to show that he thinks first of all about the advantages of France, and, on the other hand, leveled relations with the Alliance, while refusing to return to military structures.

The second reason for the actual refusal at the beginning of his presidential term of the Atlantic course, and, consequently, not a very favorable attitude towards the expansion of NATO to the East, was the rapprochement between France and Russia. Here there is a coincidence with the position of Germany on this issue. In particular, speaking to the Bundestag on September 11, 1996, G. Kohl highlighted the main position of his country on NATO expansion: to temporarily postpone the adoption of specific decisions on the entry of new members into the North Atlantic Alliance until 1997, “so that Russia does not get the impression that here fait accomplis are created” 4 . France also took a position that showed that it was ready to take into account the interests of Russia in this context: “Considering such an expansion inevitable, the French president, however, believed that it should take place taking into account Russia's security interests and simultaneously with the reform of the North Atlantic Alliance, which absolutely necessary in the new world system after the collapse of the USSR.

Another statement by J. Chirac allows us to say that France did not adhere to the position of the immediate expansion of the Alliance: “To the East, the Alliance must build true partnerships with such big country like Russia. Establishing strong ties between them and rapprochement will contribute to respect for the sovereignties and interests of each of the parties. Such a position could not help strengthen France's position in NATO. Firstly, it contradicted the US idea of an immediate expansion of NATO, and, secondly, exposed France to the risk of being on the sidelines of world politics.

That is why, in order to smooth out the accumulated contradictions that have accumulated in connection with the consideration of this issue, France decided to become a mediator in relations between Russia and NATO, thereby justifying its agreement with the US position on expanding the Alliance to the East: “France is at the origins of rapprochement Russia and NATO…now Russia will be able to fully participate in establishing the contours of a new Euro-Atlantic security space.” In 1997, at the Madrid Conference, the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between Russian Federation and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which was also initiated by France. According to this act: “Russia and NATO do not consider each other as adversaries. The common goal of Russia and NATO is to overcome the remnants of past confrontation and rivalry and to strengthen mutual trust and cooperation. This Act confirms their determination to give concrete substance to the common commitment of Russia and NATO to create a stable, peaceful and undivided Europe, united and free, for the benefit of all its peoples. This commitment at the highest political level marks the beginning of a fundamentally new relationship between Russia and NATO. They intend to develop common interests, reciprocity and transparency a strong, stable and long-term partnership” . Consequently, by becoming a mediator in the negotiations, France smoothed relations with Russia, on the one hand, and justified its agreement to NATO expansion, on the other.

J. Chirac, despite the fact that he was forced to agree with the expansion, believed that it would lead to an even greater reduction in the role of European countries in ensuring security. An example is NATO's attempts to intervene in the Yugoslav conflict in 1998 and France's position on this issue. France at that time expanded its powers within the military structures of NATO, returning in 1995 to the Military Committee. When discussing how events in Yugoslavia would develop, France denied the possibility of a forceful way to solve the problem, due to the fact that the Alliance should not, in its opinion, extend its military influence beyond the Atlantic region, especially since the UN forces have on these are more than legal rights, and without its sanction, interference in the internal affairs of the state is illegal. The United States accused France of refusing to help the Alliance in search of new reasons for its existence as a member of NATO.

1999 gave France a new reason to re-introduce the issue that security is possible without expanding NATO through the expansion of European structures. Within the framework of the European Union, a common European security and defense policy was created, which theoretically could lead to the isolation of the military-political component of the EU and its transformation into an independent structure. Hopes for change did not come true, because in 1999 Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic joined NATO. There was an expansion of NATO's area of responsibility to the territory of CEE, as well as an increase in the number of countries in the Alliance.

Events at the beginning of the 21st century showed that the Alliance will continue to expand in terms of functionality. The United States, using the events of September 11, 2001, committed a number of actions that they justified. Thus, the United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, starting to create national system missile defense, and also used it to carry out a number of activities outside the NATO area of responsibility. This is evidenced by the operations against the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2002, the war in Iraq in 2003. France, in turn, begins a policy of increasing loyalty to the issue of NATO expansion to the East. This was reflected in the fact that during the NATO summit in Prague in 2002, France supported the initiative of the Alliance member countries to expand the number of headquarters to increase management efficiency, but most importantly, France actually supported the territorial expansion of the Alliance to the East.

In 2004, another round of NATO expansion to the East took place. Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia became members of the Alliance. That is why France had to start adjusting to the rapidly changing situation on the world stage, so as not to remain on the periphery of world politics. France decides not only to start helping NATO, but also to expand its presence in the military-political structures: “During this period, France delegated its representatives to KFOR for Kosovo, the international military forces led by NATO; participated in joint operations in Afghanistan, sending its contingent of troops and several Mirage 2000-D fighter-bombers there. Its military has been added to the Alliance Rapid Response Force." . In fact, from this moment on, we can say that there has been a trend towards a full-scale return of France to the military structures of the Alliance.In Paris in 2006, at the annual conference of French ambassadors abroad, the President of France made a statement: "Attempts to involve the North Atlantic Alliance in non-military missions, temporary partnerships, technological adventures, insufficiently prepared expansion can only change the very purpose of NATO."

Thus, by 2007, France was included in almost all military structures of NATO, except for the Defense Planning Committee and the Nuclear Planning Group. In 2007 another change of power took place in France. N. Sarkozy came to power and corrected the country's foreign policy. This was reflected in the fact that now France actually agreed to pursue the Atlantic course and promote the expansion of the Alliance.

By the time of the next expansion of the Alliance in 2009, France's position regarding the expansion of the Alliance had become even softer: « NATO expansion represents a central element of security and stability on the continent,” said the new President of the Republic, Nicolas Sarkozy. Also on July 20, 2009, F. Stoll was appointed to the post of head of the NATO Allied Forces in Lisbon, and on July 29, S. Abrial was appointed to the post Supreme Commander joint NATO forces. “Abrial became the first representative of a European country to receive one of two strategically important positions in the leadership of the North Atlantic Alliance, which strengthens the position of France not only in NATO, but in Europe as a whole. This completed the integration of France into the military structures of NATO. This is expressed in the gradual increase in the French military contingent in NATO, in particular, the French aviation forces now make up about 20% of the total.

Thus, it should be noted that under Charles de Gaulle, the policy of the state towards NATO was negative. Its apogee was the withdrawal of France from the military structures of the Alliance, which, on the one hand, complicated the promotion of France's position in the political structures of NATO, and on the other hand, made it possible to pursue a policy independent of the United States. In the foreign policy concept of France under J. Chirac, there has been a tendency towards a more loyal attitude towards NATO, as well as a desire to support its fundamental undertakings, including a three-level expansion. N. Sarkozy significantly corrected the country's position in relation to the role of NATO, returning France to the military structures of the Alliance.

The issue of NATO expansion was one of the priority areas in relations between France and the North Atlantic Alliance. Initially, the French side advocated the gradual expansion of NATO. But the contradictions that arose with the United States on this issue did not allow France to adhere to the chosen course to the end. The evolution of the position occurred gradually, and it was this that gave a chance to continue cooperation with the United States in this area, as well as maintain favorable relations with Russia. In general, it can be concluded that the French position had a clear justification in the context of rapidly changing political events.

Bibliography:

Vidyapina V.I. Economic development France in 1914-1990 M. 1998 -335 p.
Kaninskaya G.N. Paris and NATO // International life. 2008. No. 10. -132 p.
Kotlyar V.S. International law and modern strategic concepts of the USA and NATO. - Kazan, 2008. - 480 p.
Independent newspaper. Chirac against the rush to NATO expansion. http://www.ng.ru/world/2006-08-30/1_shirak.html
Pupykin N.I. "PRIVILEGED" RELATIONS WITH MOSCOW IN THE FOREIGN POLICY OF ZH.CHIRAK (1995-2002). – 87 p.
Utkin A.S. "Two coasts of the Atlantic" No. 2, 1999
Schmitt M. The fight against terrorism and the use of force from the point of view international law// No. 5 of the Center. J. Marshall, 22002. - P.85.
Legal Russia. Federal legal portal. Article 10 of the Treaty establishing the North Atlantic Alliance. www.law.edu.ru/norm/norm.asp?normlD=1168226
Chirac J. Allocution a l "occasion du diner d" Etat offert en l "honneur de son excellence Monsieur Le President de la Federation de Russie et Madame Ludmila Poutina. 02/10/2003// http://www.elysee.fr/elysee/elysee.fr/francais/inter ve ntions/discours_et_declarations/2003/fevrier/fevrier_2003.13257.html
Dominique David La politique etrangere France/OTAN: la dernie marche. 2008. P. 49.
La France a l'OTAN. La France dans la transformation de l'OTANhttp://www.rpfrance-otan.org/La-France-dans-la-transformation
US Department of State Press Release "The Alliance Strategic Concept", NAC-S(99) 65, 24 April 1999. - P. 4.
Vedrine H. Continue l'histoire. Paris., 2007. P.51.
Organ the formation of the Atlantic Alliance. May 27, 1997. Founding act on mutual relations, cooperation and security between the Russian Federation and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.http://www.nato.int/cps/ru/natolive/official_texts_25468.htm
Russian newspaper. Retirement - more than once. 40 years ago de Gaulle left power. Why was he so disliked in the USA and at the end of the USSR?http://www.rg.ru/2009/04/24/degoll.html
echo geo. L'élargissement de l'OTAN. Les enjeux et les risques du sommet de Bucarest (2-4 avril 2008)http://echogeo.revues.org/5083#tocto2n2

Natalya Ivkina, student Russian University Friendship of Peoples (RUDN University)

France's withdrawal from the alliance could be the beginning of its collapse. In an interview with Komsomolskaya Pravda, a well-known European politician, leader of the National Front of France, Marine Le Pen, said that if she wins the upcoming presidential elections, she will withdraw the country from NATO.

“It must be stated that at the moment France is following the NATO line,” Marine Le Pen quotes the publication. - If I am elected, I will withdraw France from NATO. Because at the moment France has lost its own voice, we are fully adjusting and following orders coming from Washington. Sometimes orders come from Berlin as well. France, as it were, is being stretched between orders either from Washington or from Berlin.

Given that today France is simply equal to the position of Washington, there are serious concerns about how France might behave in the situation with Ukraine.”

It should be noted that against the backdrop of French dissatisfaction with the weak-willed pro-American policy of President Francois Hollande, Marine Le Pen has really good chances to become the new head of France. And with the North Atlantic Alliance, Paris has always had a difficult relationship. Is a French demarche possible in principle? If possible, how will this move affect the future of NATO?

France has more than once behaved quite freely in relation to NATO, - says Colonel General, full member of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems Leonid Ivashov. - The country left the military structure of the bloc, expelled the headquarters of the organization from its territory. Anti-NATO sentiment is quite strong here, both among the political community and directly in military circles.

More than once I have observed that French officers at official NATO events keep themselves apart. They often object to drawing France into all sorts of NATO adventures.

The French generally dislike Americans. The history of this dislike goes back to the era of General de Gaulle, who sought to weaken the influence of the United States on France. The French have not forgotten this "spirit of independence" from the Americans. And the fact that the last two presidents of the country were completely pro-American causes discontent among a significant part of French society. Therefore, Marine Le Pen really has a good chance of becoming the head of France. In this case, it can use De Gaulle's old recipe: without breaking political ties with NATO, to refuse military cooperation with it.

"SP": - What will the North Atlantic Alliance lose from this?

I recently received information that the European Commission recommended that European banks leave not only Ukraine, but also the Baltics. This means that the main countries of the West are economically leaving their allies to the mercy of fate. And this, of course, will not strengthen NATO's positions in Europe, and, in particular, in its eastern part.

If France leaves the alliance, the main burden on the European segment of NATO will fall on Germany. And we know that Germany has repeatedly tried to create some kind of European security forces. And if before all these attempts were suppressed by the United States, now the outcome may be different. In any case, the probability is very high that NATO will stagger.

After all, the alliance today is an instrument of the global financial oligarchy. Everything more people understand that such a military monster as NATO is not needed to protect against terrorist and other threats. There are no forces in the world now that would suddenly want to occupy some Western country. Awareness of this will grow in both Europe and the US. Many will think: why do we need NATO? In general, France's withdrawal from the alliance could be primarily a political blow.

"SP": - How can the Ukrainian events affect the strength of NATO?

After the Second World War, the Americans got used to acting on foreign territories and, often, by proxy. They are happy to organize wars and revolutions away from their borders. Europeans understand that it is the United States that is interested in instability in Ukraine. Thus, the Americans hope to embroil Ukraine and Russia. Yes, while still complicating economic cooperation between Russia and the EU.

But since the leadership of most European countries takes a clearly pro-American position, they follow orders from Washington - often to the detriment of the national interests of their own states.

France has not been a member of the NATO military organization for about 30 years, - says Victor Litovkin, head of the ITAR-TASS military information editorial office. - In terms of weakening the military potential, her new demarche will not greatly affect the alliance. We can say that this decision will mainly affect France itself. The main plus for the country is that Washington will no longer be able to draw it into its military adventures. France's foreign policy interests are mainly concentrated in Africa. At the same time, France has to follow in the footsteps of the United States and NATO, which have declared the whole world to be the sphere of their interests.

Therefore, the idea of Marine Le Pen is understandable and justified. The only question is whether she will be allowed to become president.

"SP": - Is it possible to say that such a loud statement of the popular European politics- a wake-up call for NATO?

Of course, many European countries are dissatisfied with this organization. The United States is imposing its policy on NATO, and through it on the participating countries, forcing them to act in line with it. But at the same time, it is important to take into account that not all European countries are ready to increase their military spending.

NATO is pursuing an aggressive policy today. First of all, in the information sphere. The US is trying to convince its European allies that Russia is a threat to them, which, of course, is not true. Such information campaigns are carried out primarily in order for the Europeans to increase their defense spending.

It must also be understood that NATO, as a bureaucratic structure, is fighting for its existence. By and large, the alliance is a bunch of European bureaucrats sitting in Brussels. This is about 3.5 thousand officials who live well at the expense of the "firm".

"SP": - That is, the Europeans will not be able to refuse the "friendly assistance" of NATO?

In the near future - no. I think that only a serious crisis, in which the alliance can be drawn, will force some countries to leave NATO. But, as we know from history, this organization prefers to deal with weak opponents, avoiding protracted bloody wars. With whom did NATO fight? With Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya ... The risk of losing a significant number of their soldiers in such operations was minimal. At the same time, small European countries have the opportunity to spend 1-1.5% of their budget on the army. While outside the bloc they would have to spend more than 2% of the state budget.

And the United States, being, in fact, the master of NATO, spends 4-5% of its GDP on military needs, while paying about 70% of all expenses of the North Atlantic Alliance.

So far, it is premature to talk about the collapse of NATO, - says Vyacheslav Tetekin, a State Duma deputy from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. - Even in the time of De Gaulle, France did not leave NATO completely. I think that Marine Le Pen, if she manages to become president, is unlikely to completely break off cooperation with the alliance. The French have traditionally sought greater independence from US politics than other Western European countries. They always liked to emphasize their peculiarity. Therefore, there is nothing unusual in Le Pen's statement.

The leading Western powers are in no hurry to leave NATO. Another thing is that they are engaged in a kind of quiet sabotage. As a member of the State Duma delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, I was convinced more than once that the countries participating in the alliance are trying in every possible way to reduce their defense spending. They refer to the difficult economic situation, while in which case they hope for US military assistance. A very comfortable position.

As for the NATO "small things", the Baltic countries, for example, their meager state budgets generally have little effect on anything. At the same time, they are the most zealous supporters of the United States. Especially in matters of anti-Russian propaganda. The Balts will hold on to NATO to the last opportunity.

"SP": - Now the US is trying to persuade France, like other EU members, to the maximum sanctions against Russia. In particular, the delivery of French helicopter carriers of the Mistral type to Russia is questionable. Perhaps the fear of losing a lucrative contract will become an additional incentive to leave NATO?

I do not think. As for the Mistrals, the matter is different. France was in a foolish position. She was among the first to start shouting that Russia should be punished “for Crimea” with sanctions. Hollande ran ahead of the locomotive, threatening to break the contract for helicopter carriers. But in this way the French risk punishing themselves. Russia does not particularly need these "iron troughs", as sailors call them. They do not fit into our defense doctrine, because we do not intend to conduct large landing operations. And if France refuses to sell them to us, then no one else will buy these almost ready ships. The United States, the only potential buyer, has enough of its own helicopter carriers.