François Cornut-Gentille: "The French army is no longer adapted to a large-scale war".
According to the deputy and rapporteur of the defense budget, we have an army designed for wars where the adversary does not have the same level of technology as us.
François Cornut-Gentille, special rapporteur for the defense budget in the French Parliament, is worried: for years now, France has been avoiding a debate on our weaknesses and our military operating methods. According to him, we have settled into a routine, which exposes us to "preparing for yesterday's war". The Les Républicains (LR) deputy from Haute-Marne warns: "With each generation, we get bigger and more sophisticated. But we never question the operational contribution in an environment that has evolved considerably."
L'Express: In the event of a large-scale war in which we would be cobelligerent, is French military power ready?
François Cornut-Gentille: Obviously, there is room for doubt. When the current Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces states that our forces would not be able to sustain a high-intensity conflict over the long term, this statement must be understood as an admission that our forces are not adapted to a war on the scale of the one we are witnessing in Ukraine. This concerns both equipment and manpower. We certainly have an army designed for asymmetric wars where the adversary does not have the same level of technology as we do. This is true in the Sahel, but it would not be true in Europe.
Thus, the conflict in Ukraine, like that in Nagorno-Karabakh, has confirmed the primordial role of artillery and drones. However, our armies are under-equipped for one and have totally missed the development of the others. The observation is unanimous; however, until now, it has not led to any reaction.
Other subjects of concern are latent: our space autonomy, strategic and tactical air transport, which is notoriously dependent on the support of foreign powers. Finally, I would add intelligence, which has shown its weaknesses both in the Sahel and in Eastern Europe.
What do some people mean when they talk about an obsession with the aircraft carrier?
For forty years, defence investments have been focused on very high-tech equipment. With each generation, we get bigger and more sophisticated. But we never ask ourselves about the operational contribution in an environment that has nevertheless evolved considerably. Everyone knows that routine does not help prepare the future. It exposes us to preparing yesterday's war.
Thus, we boast of having a naval air group that operates intermittently in the Mediterranean. The launch of the Charles-de-Gaulle successor programme was decided without any debate. However, rather than immediately freezing billions of euros and maritime capabilities over several decades, it would have been preferable to question the real contribution of a naval air group in the conflicts of tomorrow. I fear that this debate will unfortunately never take place. However, the recent destruction of the flagship of the Russian fleet in the Black Sea should invite us to do so...
This is the paradox of our military tool: even with competent personnel and sophisticated equipment, it is possible to be out of step with a reality that is constantly changing. This is an old story that is repeating itself. The Maginot Line itself was an impressive monument, equipped with the most advanced technologies of the time.
What would be the modalities of a debate on our defense that you are calling for?
The first condition is the acceptance of the principle of the debate. But, for several years, the Ministry of the Armed Forces has refused any idea of questioning our weaknesses and our modes of operation. Thus, it is impossible today to know the availability of our aircraft, ships and other land vehicles. Ten years ago, this was not the case. Of course, the truth can sometimes hurt, but it is the only way to move forward.
Who can lead this debate?
It is of course very difficult for the military or industrialists to question the tools they use or produce. Moreover, the executive's approach, which is too often narrowly budgetary, does not allow for this work, as it is mainly guided by the search for balance between the industrialists and the various armed forces.
Under these conditions, only Parliament can carry out this task, as it has the necessary hindsight and independence to accomplish it. This presupposes that parliamentarians engage in real work and do not simply pass on the various demands of the defence industry and the armed forces. This would be the contribution of a Parliament worthy of the name.
Around which issues?
There are many issues. I have already touched on some of them. But we must also mention nuclear deterrence. Vladimir Putin has used deterrence to attack a country without nuclear weapons and to avoid a major response. This disturbing precedent should cause us to reflect on our doctrine of deterrence and non-proliferation, as others may be tempted to follow his lead in the future.
What role does the European Union play in these defense issues?
A considerable role in the speeches of French leaders, but in practice, an extremely modest one. Without doubt, European defence is an interesting idea, but at this stage it is still essentially a virtual reality. Thus, the European Defense Fund that is regularly praised has only 7.9 billion euros over six years. While this is a significant figure in absolute terms, in terms of defence and on a European scale, it can be considered quite marginal.
Similarly, Franco-German industrial cooperation is often presented as a pillar of the future Europe of defence, but its implementation is also very modest. Difficulties are piling up on both the tank and the future aircraft (FCAS), to the point that it is not certain that these projects will be successful.
The truth about European defence that French politicians do not want to acknowledge is NATO. From this point of view, the only question that arises is whether we have the means to have a say in it. Unfortunately, no one cares about this: this subject is not part of the language that has been repeated for thirty years.
