MR. IGNATIUS: Welcome to Washington Post Live. I’m David Ignatius, a columnist for The Post.
We're honored to be joined today by France's ambassador to Washington, Laurent Bili. We're going to talk about Ukraine, other issues around the world. Mr. Ambassador, thank you for joining us today.
AMB. BILI: Thank you for having me.
MR. IGNATIUS: So, Mr. Ambassador, let's begin with the situation surrounding Ukraine. Last weekend in Munich, where I was attending the security conference, the mood, frankly, was ominous with the death of Alexei Navalny, the Russian capture of Avdiivka in Eastern Ukraine, and the fear that Republicans may block additional U.S. military assistance.
Let's start with the death of the courageous dissident, Navalny. Does your government, does the French government, believe that Navalny was murdered, and how do you think Vladimir Putin should be made to pay a price for this terrible tragedy?
Advertisement
AMB. BILI: Well, France has been asking for a full investigation on the issue of the death of Navalny. We also sent the ambassador of Russia to Paris, and our ambassador, as you may have seen, was on the Lubyanka Square on the Solovetsky Stone to pay tribute to Navalny. It's a very shocking death, and it reminds us that in today's Russia, free spirit is sent to Gulag or, best-case scenario, into death. So I think it's a terrible signal that we have to take into account when we think about the support that we are providing to Ukraine.
MR. IGNATIUS: So, as you know, Ambassador, as we were about to come on air, the White House spokesman, John Kirby, announced that the U.S. will be formally announcing new sanctions against Russia related to Navalny's death on Friday. This obviously is very fresh news, but I want to ask you two things. Will France support this move by the Biden administration to impose sanctions, and is France planning any sanctions of its own after Navalny's death?
AMB. BILI: Well, I understand that we have to look at a strong reaction after the death of Mr. Alexei Navalny. We have been implementing already a huge packet of sanctions. So I probably--we probably look on the matter to find for other ideas, but I'm not aware at the moment of where we stand exactly. There is already some decision on that respect.
Advertisement
MR. IGNATIUS: But just to be clear, France isn't currently planning any new sanctions to respond to Navalny's death?
AMB. BILI: We may be looking at it, but I'm just--it's a very new element, so I don't have much to comment on the subject at the moment. But I'm certainly sure that we are not excluding any possibility.
MR. IGNATIUS: All right. Let me turn, Mr. Ambassador, to Ukraine. On Friday, before traveling to Munich, Ukrainian President Zelensky was in Paris to sign a bilateral agreement with your president, Emmanuel Macron, that will give Ukraine, by news reports, 3 billion euro in additional military aid. Macron spoke of France moving to a war-industry footing. Give our audience watching now a basic summary of what's included in your new agreement with Ukraine and why this will be significant, not just for France but for Europe.
Advertisement
AMB. BILI: Well, first of all, we have to recall to the audience that it's really additional. So it's on top of the 50 billion new package that the EU has decided, and it's really about French contribution directly because the European Union contribution is basically around 18 percent from French taxpayer. That new package will help to finance military devices like the one we have been providing in the past, which includes artillery, CAESAR system, the SCALP missiles, which have been quite efficient in the theater, some more training, ammunitions, precise ammunitions. So there is a lot of things.
But the main thing here is that we have that amount which is dedicated to respond also on real time to Ukrainian demands. So we are not excluding anything on the package. It's the finance that we have for next year, and it's retargeted to answer to the Ukrainian needs.
AMB. BILI: So let me focus on how quickly this assistance can be delivered, how quickly more CAESARs and other essential weapons and ammunition can be in Ukrainian hands. Listening last weekend to Zelensky and Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, it sounded as if the need is urgent. Ukraine is running out of ammunition. Its troops have to ration their artillery fire, and Ukraine cities are close to being without air defense to protect the people in those cities in Kyiv and Lviv. How quickly can this French military assistance get there, and are you trying to adopt special procedures to move it fast enough that it can make a difference now or in the coming weeks as Ukraine struggles with Russian advances?
Advertisement
AMB. BILI: I think it's also important to highlight that in the last two years, Europeans have changed. We are not anymore coming from Venice. We have been speeding up and ramping up our defense industry. One of the key artillery systems that we deliver to Ukraine, CEASAR artillery, we have been able to cut by half the time of production. We have something like 60 more which are under production at the moment. We have been triple our production of ammunition.
But at the same time, I wouldn't like to give to the audience that we can do without the support of the U.S., because whatever our efforts are, the challenges are enormous. And it's not so easy to pass from harvesting the dividend of peace to a war economy, and we need time. And we really need the U.S. support at that very moment, because as you said, the situation on the ground is difficult, and if we want to help Ukraine, we have to do it now. We can't drag our feet anymore. It's really the moment where allies have to be together and bring support to the Ukrainians now.
MR. IGNATIUS: And, Mr. Ambassador, let me ask you to take that a step further. The House of Representatives is considering the supplemental military aid request. Everyone says that there ought to be 300 votes to pass it if it can get to the floor. What's the message that you as the ambassador of France, the representative of one of our key allies, would send to Republican members of Congress who may be opposing this package to try to convince them to take action?
Advertisement
AMB. BILI: I think, first of all, we have to recall again that it's not a regional issue. It's not a European issue. It's a challenge of our generation. There is no scenario in that war where Russia wins and the U.S. don't lose. That's, I think, very key.
It's about also the legacy of the greatest generation. We have been living in 75 years of peace, thanks to the rule-based international order, thanks to NATO, and it's a legacy that we have to protect. And that protecting that legacy today, it's supporting Ukraine, which is fighting--who is fighting for our values, who will struggle for their freedom. And whatever the efforts that we are doing are, at the end of the day, the one who are fighting for us, for our values, which are risking their lives and sometimes paying the price of their life, that's the Ukrainian soldiers, that's the Ukrainian population, which are bound also by outrageous attacks to the civilian population by the Russian forces.
MR. IGNATIUS: So let me ask a blunt question. You spoke earlier of France's new bilateral commitment to Ukraine of an additional 3 billion euros and the things you're doing to move as quickly as you can, but honestly, if the United States does not join in this effort with additional military aid, is it going to be possible for Ukraine to continue and to survive in this war against Russian attacks? What do you think?
Advertisement
AMB. BILI: I would prefer not to consider that alternative. I think the Ukrainians need our help. They are fighting courageously. Two years ago, very few observers will have guessed that we will be still where we are today with some of the strategic defeat of Russia, with not able to take Kyiv, with Sweden and Finland joining NATO. So we have now to finish the job after two years and help Ukraine to stand, and it requires--absolutely, there is no alternative to that U.S. support.
Sometimes I hear that if it's so important for the Europeans, we should empty our coffer. We are emptying our coffer. We are doing a lot. But at the same time, we know also our limits.
But the difference also for us is that we are really also contributing to the--indirectly also to the U.S. economy, because like what we call the “Peace Facility” from the European Union, 60 percent of what we give to Ukraine via that facility is going back to the U.S. So we are also in a different position.
Advertisement
The only industrial military base which is able to deliver at the speed, at the level that is needed, it's the U.S. one, but it's also a kind of contribution to U.S. economy.
Share this articleShareMR. IGNATIUS: So, Mr. Ambassador, returning to the details of French and other European assistance to Ukraine, after President Zelensky visited Paris, he went on to Germany to see Prime Minister Scholz and made a similar bilateral agreement with Germany. Zelensky spoke of those two agreements--I'm quoting here--"as a new security architecture for Ukraine and new opportunities.” These additional efforts come on top of the extensive European Union financial support for Ukraine that you spoke of earlier, the 50 billion euros, and the discussion of these new efforts as being in effect so long as Ukraine is not part of NATO.
So the question that I want to raise with you is, given the level of European support to Ukraine, both economically and militarily, and given how crucial Ukraine is to the future of Europe, why not move quickly to make Ukraine part of the European Union and part of NATO?
Advertisement
AMB. BILI: Well, first of all, when I spoke about the 50 billion euros, it was a new package, but the total that we have been spending already before the 50 billion is 100 billion. So it's a real important contribution that Europe has been spending, and it's more than the U.S.
On the question of enlargement to NATO and to the EU, on the EU, we have taken the decision to start the negotiation, and I think it was a very clear and positive message that we stand by Ukraine, and we don't see another future for Ukraine to be part of the European family, the European Union family.
So NATO enlargement is a bit more tricky. We are in favor of Ukraine joining NATO, but it poses some real questions to have a new member when the war is still going on. And also, it's a kind of question about the message that we send. Russians have been very good at selling to the so-called “Global South” that the expansion of NATO was a real reason of the war and, in fact, Russia was having a defensive war, so somehow, we are fueling--we would be fueling that narrative if we were going in that direction. But I have no doubt that, anyway, history is clear, and Ukraine will be part of NATO.
MR. IGNATIUS: So I just want to underline that, that however long it takes, as you look at this, as your government in Paris looks at this, Ukraine will someday be a member of the European Union and will someday be a member of NATO. Is that a fair statement?
AMB. BILI: Certainly. As the world has changed two years ago, that was also another strategic defeat from Russia to misread our determination, and I don't see a future for Ukraine, which is not being part of the European Union.
MR. IGNATIUS: Another theme that was prominent at last weekend's security conference in Munich was what I would describe as an effort to protect the transatlantic alliance and to protect Europe from the possibility that Donald Trump, who has expressed great skepticism about NATO, has threatened that he would support attacks on NATO countries that didn't pay enough money for their defense, to, in effect, Trump-proof the alliance.
I want to pose this in a question that was sent to us by a member of our audience, David in Maryland, and he asked it this way: “If Trump wins the next election and pulls out of NATO, will NATO remain strong enough to carry on until the next U.S. election," when presumably another president might try to get back in NATO? What do you think?
AMB. BILI: Well, there is two levels of answer to the question. There is some legal issue about the ability of one president to go out of NATO, and then there is a political question about the impact more generally of a NATO without the U.S.
On the first one, you know better than me that there is some guardrails.
On the second one, I think we have to face the reality that NATO, it's about North America and Europe going together, because history teaches us that together we are stronger. We protected peace for 75 years, and the issue is, do we want to continue that? If the U.S. was not part of NATO, I don't see how NATO could survive the blow, but as Europeans, we will have to continue to fight for our defense.
But again, I think there is a real reason why 75 years ago, Europeans and Americans, North Americans decided to join force within NATO. It has been very effective, and we should preserve that legacy.
MR. IGNATIUS: Let me ask a more direct question. Do you think that France and other European nations--but I want to ask about France--needs to prepare, however much it may hope that the United States remains a solid partner, prepare for the possibility that the United States might leave NATO, might end its transatlantic alliance as we've known it since 1945? Should France be preparing for that awful possibility, do you think?
AMB. BILI: I think the real change of these last years is the Russian attack on Ukraine. We were living in a peaceful continent. Two years ago, we discovered a war, a traditional war in Europe was possible. So since then, I think all countries in Europe, the one on the first line, but also countries like France, like Germany, has been thinking and preparing that the possibility that a general war could be possible, and we have been raising our military spending. We have been ramping up our industrial base, and that's a real challenge. It's really what is a trigger for us. We know that we are living in a much more dangerous world than before.
But at the same time, we should also enlarge the scope, because the world is not just on Ukraine, and I think the world is back on a moment of competition between powers, and the rule-based international order that we built is under threat. And so we have to see the global picture and not to think that if we look at Ukraine as a regional issue, it doesn't have an impact, it doesn't send a message somewhere else in the world.
MR. IGNATIUS: Let me ask one more question that's come from our audience. This is Stephen in Connecticut who asks, “What effect, if any, do you see the increased strength of the far right in France having on the future willingness of France to contribute substantially to the defense of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity?” What about that? Is French right-wing pressure posing a threat similar to what we see in the United States with Donald Trump?
AMB. BILI: So far, the far right has been, with nuances, more supportive of Ukraine. They had to distance a bit themselves with the support that they received at a certain moment from Russia. We are having an electoral system which is more in favor of the majority vote, because we have a two-term elections for the member of the Chamber of Representatives. So I don't see in the possible future an impact on the race of one party or another in France changing that understanding that we are living in a very dangerous moment, that Russia is becoming a threat.
And by the way, we live that also very directly because we have a challenge on our democracy. There is something that we call “Portal Combat” that we identified with the 193 internet sites providing fake news, attacking our political personnel, and we observe that in many places of the world where also Russia is a spoiler of the international order. So I don't think there is much doubt in the public opinion in France that Russia is today a threat to our democracy.
MR. IGNATIUS: So, Ambassador, let me turn away from Ukraine to another area that you know a lot about. Before coming to Washington, you were France's ambassador to China and are one of the real experts in Washington on China. Many analysts see China now in a period that's often described as “malaise,” the economy slowing in its growth, the population frustrated with the government. Even members of the party, midlevel bureaucrats saying to visitors, who tell people like me, how frustrated they are with the policies of President Xi Jinping. You know China better than most people. What do you see going on? Do you think there's this problem of malaise developing now?
AMB. BILI: There is something like a malaise going on, and the growth is smaller, and there is still the legacy also of the zero-covid policy, which has been very unpopular in some cities like Shanghai, certainly, after a strong confinement, but in Beijing as well. But we also have to be cautious of what we feel in big cities and among elites that we meet and, let's say, Tier 2, -3 cities, which enjoy, in the last years, a growing, still a better quality of living. And also the fact that under Xi Jinping and thanks to new technology, the capacity or the ability of control of the population is much stronger than it used to be.
So yes, it's certainly a difficult moment for China, but it's not necessarily translating to something in terms of political challenge to the authority of President Xi Jinping.
MR. IGNATIUS: So another thing analysts worry about is that as China's economy slows, President Xi Jinping may be tempted to play what we would call the “nationalism card” to rally the country behind him, and specifically, people worry that he might seek to reunify Taiwan with China using military force. I want to ask you two things. First, as a former ambassador and expert on China, what do you think is the likelihood that Xi would use military force during his time as president to reunify? And second, what would France do if Taiwan was invaded by the PRC?
AMB. BILI: I think nationalism is really the core and maybe the only ideology of today's China, and so using the nationalistic card is not necessarily something very new. It's something that has been there for decades but even more since the opening of the economy. It's really what sticks the country together is that idea of nationalism.
The nationalism encompasses the question of Taiwan and the unity of China, and so I think we have to be clear that there is no way that China is going to forget about its willingness to re-create the complete unity of China and Taiwan being the last part separated from the motherland.
So if we have to be realistic, the best that we can achieve is to preserve the status quo, and that's where France is concentrating also its effort and messaging toward President Xi Jinping, not to change the status quo by force, and to refrain to fuel the tension. And I think the best that we can do is really to avoid whatever we can to fuel tension in the Straits.
Regarding France's position, we have been very clear, that we are also on our wish to preserve the status quo. We have a frigate which is also passing in the Strait to show our support to the freedom of navigation, and we are determined to continue to play our partition to make sure that the scenario that you have been mentioning is not happening.
MR. IGNATIUS: So let me turn to the relationship between France and the United States. In 2021, the AUKUS deal, so-called “agreement” for the U.S., Australia, and Britain to work together on nuclear submarines, excluding France, which had been building submarines for Australia, rocked the relationship. I think that's putting it mildly. Has the wound of AUKUS healed now so that the relationship between Washington and Paris is where it should be, or are there still tensions?
AMB. BILI: It has been some time already. It was a wound, as you mentioned. I think there is a lot of things for historians to study about all the mechanism in the years to come. But there were, after that, the invitation of our president for a state visit in Washington in November, December, and our leaders decided that it was time to turn the page and look at the future. And the future is also a common challenge that we have, which is Ukraine, which should stick allies together because we really need to work together. And so I think it's largely now in the past.
And France is really determined to work for the long term of a relation. We have been allied for something like 250 years and ready to add a new century or two to that.
MR. IGNATIUS: So last question, we have less than a minute. What additional areas of U.S.-French cooperation beyond Ukraine would you like to see as ambassador?
AMB. BILI: Well, in the state visit, we had opened two very important subjects, which are space cooperation and nuclear, and on space cooperation, there is a lot of things going on which are very promising. And I hope that we will continue and achieve some results in these fields.
MR. IGNATIUS: So I want to thank Ambassador Laurent Bili, the ambassador of France to Washington, for joining us today. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.
AMB. BILI: Thanks a lot.
MR. IGNATIUS: So thanks to all of you for joining us for this discussion of security issues, especially in Ukraine. For more conversations, please sign up for the Washington Post subscription. You can get a free trial by visiting WAPO.st/live to get the opportunity to watch more of these programs. I’m David Ignatius, columnist for The Post.
Thank you again for watching.
[End recorded session]
ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7uK3SoaCnn6Sku7G70q1lnKedZMSiv8eipaCsn6N6sbvSrWSloaaafHN8kW1maWpfZ31wwNGapaybop69tXnWqKmlnF2owaKzxGaspKqRnrumedaiq6FlnJbCs7HNrWSboZyeeqe%2BxKeaoWWRoq%2Biv9Kam6iqXaq7qsDEnWSsrJGpsrR7