This interview with General Vincent Desportes aims to shed light on the geopolitical situation, defense issues and the risks that France, Europe and the world are facing today.
Before we begin, I would like to clarify two points.
The first point is that it’s unusual for a humanitarian magazine to feature an interview with a general or a military officer, but we know that the war in Ukraine has caused millions of displaced persons and refugees, as well as very heavy losses among Ukrainian soldiers and civilians. Every day, Russia carries out destruction of infrastructure in Ukraine, with all the ensuing consequences. The cost of reconstruction is currently estimated at $700 billion, which is absolutely enormous. Obviously, the humanitarian dimension of this war explains this interview, because it’s important to understand the geopolitical and defense-related factors that led us to this war in Ukraine.
The second point is that, even as we publish this interview, European political and military leaders are assessing the risk of a Russian attack in Europe in the coming years, and at the same time, negotiations are still underway between the United States, Ukraine, and Russia that could lead to a peace agreement . In this highly uncertain context, we have chosen to address strategic issues over the long term.
Alain Boinet
German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, a Social Democrat, recently told the German Parliament: “We must be ready for war by 2029.” Similarly, US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth stated: “We are living through a 1939 moment .” In France, the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Fabien Mandon, recently announced before the Congress of Mayors of France that we must be ready, in three to four years, to face a Russian attack in Europe and that we would then have to commit ourselves and be prepared to lose our children. Finally, just a year ago, Sébastien Lecornu, then Minister of Defence and now Prime Minister, published a book entitled “Towards War.”
Are we on the verge of a new war in Europe that would involve France?
Vincent Desportes
So, it’s interesting that you cited different high-ranking officials. You could have cited others. You could have cited the Polish authorities, the Baltic authorities, the British authorities, who all share the same opinion.
Today there is a risk of confrontation between Europe, perhaps NATO, and Russia. If all these countries are saying this—countries with different intelligence services, sometimes sharing common but also diverse sources—then there is clearly something behind it, and nations and politicians cannot ignore these warnings.
I am a professor of strategy, and I know that in strategy, you cannot exclude the worst-case scenario. I remind you that we excluded the worst-case scenario at the beginning of the 20th century, and that gave us the First World War. We excluded the worst-case scenario in the mid-1930s, and that gave us the Second World War with 60 million deaths.
So today, we cannot run the risk of being unprepared for a coming war, especially since the point is not to arrive ready to wage that war but to ensure that, because we are ready for it, it does not happen.
If there is an aggressor in Europe today, it can only be Russia, which has shown since the early 2000s that it initiates wars at a rate of one every three or four years. Therefore, there is a certain degree of credibility in the statements of these authorities.
Today, this war is possible, but it must not happen, and it will not happen if we are sufficiently deterrent. However, today we are not. The latest British defense report, released yesterday, indicates that the British would not be able to withstand an attack. Germany also believes it would not be able to. We, too, know that we would not be able to. Therefore, it is clear that there is an absolute need to develop defense capabilities that would allow us not only to avoid losing this war but, above all, to prevent it altogether.
Why three or four years?
Three or four years is the minimum and the possible. The minimum, provided the war between Ukraine and Russia ends next year. From that point on, Western intelligence services believe Russia will need two years, but no more, to rebuild its stockpiles, increase its fighting force to two million troops, and be effectively capable of launching an attack, not against Europe as a whole, but against the vulnerabilities that Europe presents.
Therefore, there is not just a probability, but a clear possibility of war. We cannot be so irresponsible as to disregard this and fail to prepare to prevent this war from occurring.
Alain Boinet
The President of the Republic has just decided to create a voluntary military service that will bring together 10,000 young people in 2030 and 50,000 in 2035, in addition to the 210,000 professional soldiers and 80,000 reservists expected by 2030 (47,000 today). Similarly, the government is preparing public opinion for the possibility of conflict with the publication by the General Secretariat for National Defence (SGDN) of a booklet entitled “All Responsible,” which explains how to prepare very concretely for difficult times, as other countries in Europe have already done.
Vincent Desportes
So, is France preparing? Of course, since France isn’t prepared. Why weren’t we prepared?
The first answer is that the army is not the army of the army, but the army of the people, who express themselves through their Parliament. And the mission that had been given to the French army until two or three years ago was to be ready to deploy 15,000 troops several thousand kilometers away to intervene outside the national territory against poorly organized forces.
The French armed forces had an insufficient budget, but one that was sufficient to build an army capable of fulfilling its assigned mission. Proof of this lies in the excellence with which France conducted Operation Serval in 2013, and then Operation Barkhane until two years ago in the Sahel. I’m not referring here to diplomatic results, but to the fact that, militarily, things were done as they needed to be done. So we knew how to do this, and we were prepared for it.
But we are completely unprepared for a so-called high-intensity conventional war, which is what we must prepare for today. And so the French army is preparing, but it has a long way to go because it is currently ill-equipped, both in terms of size and the quality of its equipment and personnel. The French army must regain its strength and depth, and, together with other armed forces, acquire the necessary resources. The defense problem is a problem of the defense of Europe, and of France within Europe. It is a European problem.
The General Staff estimates that we would be ready in 2029 or 2030, which is somewhat after the deadline given for a potential Russian aggression against Europe. On average, the general staffs believe that our equipment would need to be increased fivefold within a few years to be adequate. The road ahead is therefore long.
You rightly mentioned the issue of national service, a perennial problem. The issue is that it’s pointless to increase our capabilities in terms of tanks, aircraft, and ships if we don’t have the men and women to operate that equipment.
The difficulty is that France opted for a professional army in 1996, and today it has reached its recruitment capacity for professional soldiers. In fact, the army is in a competitive recruitment market. Although it is the largest recruiter in France, taking on 25,000 people annually, it competes with all businesses and society as a whole, which are recruiting people with the same profile and age group. We therefore have to share this age group. And today, we are pretty much at our maximum capacity.
Especially since we believe that for our professional soldiers to be of high quality, we need two candidates for every position. However, the number of candidates is too low today; we have a ratio of approximately one to three. We cannot go any lower, since we need to recruit sailors, airmen, and soldiers fit for combat, because that is precisely what we are looking for.
Since we cannot increase the number of professional soldiers, we must find the manpower elsewhere. We obviously cannot, and must not, reinstate mandatory and universal national service. For a simple reason: one age group comprises 800,000 young women and men, and we absolutely do not need such a large number. Their conscription would require the reconstruction of dozens of barracks that we no longer have, since we sold them off forty years ago. And it would require a significant number of non-commissioned officers and officers, which we simply do not have.
Since the problem is a defense issue, a new demographic must be recruited. This is what is known as voluntary national service. In other words, the armed forces will be increasingly open to young people who choose to serve France, to uphold French values, and to represent everything that makes us French and European.
A voluntary service will be established. Young French people will come, and their commitment will be compensated initially by a substantial stipend and perhaps by other benefits (driver’s license, medical assistance, etc.). We will need to find ways to make this voluntary national service attractive. It can work. The Americans themselves have an active-duty army and, practically alongside it, another army of volunteers called the National Guard. The United States, for example, pays for the lifetime medical care of these people.
Therefore, this resource will have to be found in order to double the military personnel of the armed forces.
Your readers and listeners must understand that today, the threat we face is far more serious and far greater than the one we faced during the Cold War. And yet, we are infinitely less prepared, infinitely less equipped, and we have infinitely fewer human resources than during the Cold War. We must therefore find these human resources, find these equipment, and give real substance to the defense of France and the defense of Europe so that war does not come.
Alain Boinet
The invasion of Ukraine launched by Russia on February 24, 2022, represents a geopolitical turning point, and there are fears that it could continue and escalate. This concerns, of course, France, all member states of the European Union, and Europe as a whole. Are you concerned about the current difficulties faced by the Ukrainian army, which is retreating across the entire front in the face of the Russian army’s continued advance?
Vincent Desportes
Today, the situation in Ukraine is critical, which is very worrying. If we had taken serious action immediately after the irresponsible Russian aggression of February 24, 2022, we would not be in this situation. If we had been able to define clear war aims from the outset, and if European countries had adopted genuine strategies, we would not be facing the current situation.
While Europe’s GDP is ten times greater than Russia’s, and while Europe possesses a significantly larger military force compared to Russia, Ukraine is not necessarily losing the war, but rather retreating. The situation is now absolutely critical.
Russia is making a little progress each day. Admittedly, it’s happening at a pace that may seem slow. But we must bear in mind, and I speak as a historian, that the logic of war is not linear. Indeed, a front holds and then suddenly it collapses. We French experienced the tragic example of this ; we lost the Second World War in two hours after having fought for months. On the night of May 13-14, 1940, there was a break, and we lost the war, with the well-known consequences.
We cannot rule out such a shift occurring in Ukraine. Thus, the situation in Ukraine is critical, and if the situation in Ukraine is critical, ours is too.
If Ukraine were to lose this war, the consequences would be immense:
– Europe’s credibility would be seriously damaged
– the European Union, which is experiencing its first real existential crisis since its creation, could implode
– the link between America and Europe could break
We would then enter a world of the unknown, with considerable consequences. Therefore, it is not only the situation in Ukraine that is critical, but also the situation in Europe and the West.
The future of France and Europe is being decided today in Pokrov, Kupyansk, and Zaporizhzhia. We must be fully aware of this. It is therefore up to Europe, without hesitation, to provide Ukraine with all possible assistance to ensure the front holds.
The Ukrainian army is currently the best army in Europe. It constitutes Europe’s first line of defense, the first line of defense for our values. We must help it hold. If this army were to give way, if the front were to collapse, if Russian forces were to reach the Polish and Romanian borders, we would be in real danger and infinitely weaker than we are today to defend ourselves. Yes, the Ukrainian army is in danger. Yes, the situation is critical. And yes, we must do everything we can to prevent it from deteriorating further.
Alain Boinet
Ukraine’s resistance is not just that of Ukraine; it now constitutes the best defense for European countries, and therefore for France. But, as you pointed out, this mobilization may still be insufficient to prevent a Russian victory, regardless of the Ukrainian war effort itself, particularly in terms of troop numbers. In this context, how should we understand the letter of intent signed by Presidents Emmanuel Macron and Volodymyr Zelensky for the purchase of 100 Rafale fighter jets, following the purchase of Swedish Gripen aircraft?
Vincent Desportes
Today, America is no longer helping Ukraine at all. Our great despair is having believed for 80 years in a genuine Euro-Atlantic community of values and thought. We now understand that we lived in an illusion, that this community doesn’t truly exist, and that we can no longer count on the United States. This is entirely new and unsettling for us. But we have no other choice but to step up.
Let’s return to the quality of the Ukrainian army. It is currently the strongest in Europe because we learn war within war. For a very long time, no European army has fought in a high-intensity, conventional conflict. We no longer really know how to do it, which doesn’t mean we wouldn’t learn; we would learn in the same way that Ukraine has. But if a confrontation with Russia were to occur tomorrow, European armies would be facing a Russian army that has improved considerably in almost four years and that has mastered the use of drones and the conduct of combat. We would then face a very difficult, potentially deadly learning curve that could result in defeat. We cannot rule it out. Before reaching Ukraine’s operational level, months of learning would be necessary, and Russia would take advantage of that. We must therefore help Ukraine since it is in everyone’s interest, it is in the interest of the West and it is in our interest as Europeans and French.
Regarding the Rafale fighter jets, it’s important to understand that this is a letter of intent, not a firm order. It will take time before it becomes a contract, and these aircraft won’t arrive on the battlefield for another three to five years. Therefore, this isn’t what will change the course of the war today. What will change the game are the immediate deliveries (bombs, artillery shells, anti-aircraft missiles). Nevertheless, the Rafale jets have a strategic impact on the current war. This is the first time since the beginning of the conflict that we’ve acted proactively rather than reactively. We’re thus letting Putin know that we’re prepared to defend ourselves for years to come, which is very important. If Ukraine were to lose and Putin were to consider some new advantage he could gain from this new war—what the Americans call a trade-off — we would send him a clear message: he would be facing European armies that are reorganizing and preparing for the long term. This doesn’t guarantee he won’t act, because let’s remember that he launched this war despite its irrationality. But we are demonstrating a commitment to sustained defense and telling Putin we will not yield, we will not submit, and we will defend ourselves.
Alain Boinet
In this context, France’s defense budget has increased steadily since 2017. It was €32.3 billion in 2017, €43.9 billion in 2023, and is projected to reach €67.4 billion in 2030. Meanwhile, at a NATO meeting under intense pressure from President Trump, we collectively committed to increasing defense spending to 5% of GDP, or approximately € 125 billion for France . Given the current political and economic climate, the question is whether these budgetary efforts can be achieved in the face of the risk of war you just mentioned?
Vincent Desportes
We are dealing here with a means-end relationship. What is the desired end? Is it to live more or less as we do today, or to ensure our security and that of Europe in the long term? This is the question of the present versus the future.
If we don’t find ways to defend ourselves today, we’ll have nothing left to defend. The Chief of the Defence Staff recently reminded the mayors of France that a choice must be made, a rebalancing between social welfare and the core functions of the state. Until now, we have lived in a relatively comfortable world for Europeans, where American taxes supported our defense and our own taxes financed a constantly expanding social system. Social needs are insatiable, and we have always had to draw on the state’s resources to meet them. Today, a genuine awakening of awareness is necessary.
France currently spends approximately 33% of its GDP on social programs and 2% on the military. This balance will need to be re-evaluated, and at some point, a choice may have to be made between pensions and the military. If the military isn’t strengthened, there will be no pensions left to defend. This requires genuine political courage, which is difficult to muster today, especially given the weakened state of our authorities. What I regret is that the political class as a whole fails to grasp the existential threat facing France, Europe, and our civilization. To ensure our security, we must address both our debt problem, which weakens us daily, and our defense problem, so that we can focus our defense efforts where they truly lie.
Alain Boinet
Just before this interview, we learned of a 28-point American peace plan for Ukraine, apparently negotiated with Russia, without Ukraine or the Europeans, between Steve Witkoff—representing Donald Trump—and Kirill Dmitriev—representing Vladimir Putin. What are your thoughts on this? Does this plan have any chance of succeeding? And, if it does, would all risk of conflict be eliminated?
Vincent Desportes
I believe this plan was not negotiated. This plan represents exactly Russia’s will, accepted as is by Steve Witkoff. At this stage, we don’t even know if this leaked document, most likely at the Russians’ instigation, actually has the approval of the highest American authorities. This plan is in line with what some call the “spirit of Anchorage,” that is, the name of the last meeting between Trump and Putin. But, to be clear, it’s a plan of complete surrender. It adopts President Putin’s strategic objectives point by point.
It is important to remember that this document was not discussed with all stakeholders. Ukraine was not involved, even though it is clearly the most directly affected. Neither was Europe. This absence immediately disqualifies the document; it is completely unacceptable and will not be accepted. In fact, I think it was designed to be rejected. Because Russia knows perfectly well that neither Ukraine nor Europe will accept such a text.
She therefore sees two advantages in this. First, she can accuse Ukraine of “refusing peace” before the entire world, repeating a lie she has already been spreading for months. Second, it provides justification for continuing the war, since the plan will be rejected and Ukraine will continue its military operations. This plan, therefore, does not make peace more likely. On the contrary, it is designed to prolong the war. Putin will only stop when his trade – off indicates that he has more to lose than to gain. And today, it is in his interest to continue. He is winning. He is putting Ukraine under pressure. And Europe is not yet ready to resist him. Russia is therefore pressing its advantage, seeking to move the front line as far away as possible. Because, in the end, a negotiated peace is always based on the lines held by the armies at the time of the ceasefire.
This so-called “peace plan” is therefore in reality a plan of capitulation, dictated by the Russians, unacceptable to Zelensky as well as to Europe, and intended not to interrupt the war, but to give it a new pretext to prolong it.
Alain Boinet
Our conversation focuses primarily on Ukraine and its consequences for France and Europe, but can we broaden the geopolitical perspective and consider the risks at the international level? What is your assessment of the situation in Asia-Pacific and Africa, particularly in light of the jihadist movements in the Sahel?
Vincent Desportes
We live in a world where distance and time are relative. Everything that happens in Taiwan or Africa has an impact here. We are at a turning point, marking the transition to a world radically different from the one we have known since 1945.
The post-World War II world order, with its major institutions (UN, IMF, World Bank, NATO, European Union, ICC, WTO), is collapsing. These institutions were created by the West at a time when it dominated the world, but that Western era is over.
Today, we no longer hold a monopoly on power, we no longer produce the majority of global wealth since 58% of wealth is now generated in Asia, and we no longer possess the demographics that enabled colonial projects. The Global South, and particularly the BRICS, now has more power, population, and production than Europe. This process of de-Westernization challenges international law and the regulations imposed by the former superpowers.
Former colonies are now rejecting the rules established by their former colonizers. Resentment towards the powerful is translating into a widespread desire to challenge the positions and rules established by the West. We are entering a world we have never known, a world of which we are no longer the center and over which we can no longer dictate our law.
The world has changed, but we didn’t want to realize it. Two moments forced us to acknowledge this shift: first, Russia’s aggression on February 24, 2022, and then the election of Trump. An even more significant moment was February 24, 2025, when the United States allied itself with China and Cuba to oppose a UN resolution that sought to declare Russia’s aggression illegal.
Regarding Africa:
At the turn of the 20th century, when Europeans conquered the continent, Africa had approximately 158 million inhabitants. Today, the African population is projected to reach 2.5 billion by 2050, with neither an economy nor an army capable of meeting its needs and addressing internal crises. De-Westernization in Africa has resulted in a reduction of the French military presence. Bamako and the Sahel illustrate this reality: local populations are turning to private militias like Wagner, and now Afrika Korps, and jihadism is thus stifling certain regions. France is unlikely to return in force, and the United States is not getting involved either. This is a major and complex problem that no international body can fully grasp.
Regarding Asia:
China expresses a desire for historical revenge, linked to the unequal treaties (the Opium Wars) imposed by the West in the 19th century. The Chinese speak of the century of humiliation, and there is a strong desire for retribution. President Xi Jinping aims to make China the world’s leading economic and military power by 2049, the centenary of Mao’s rise to power. However, his ambition is unlikely to be realized due to a declining birth rate of 1.09 children per woman.
China is pursuing an aggressive policy of maritime predation in the South China Sea, targeting the Philippine islands and asserting claims on Taiwan. This is especially significant given that the United States considers China its primary competitor. Chinese military budgets are growing rapidly, at nearly 10% per year. The risk of conflict in Asia involving nuclear powers is real. Other tensions, such as those between India and Pakistan, exacerbate this risk.
According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), there were about thirty open conflicts in the year 2000 and today we are at 130. We are moving towards a world that is no longer afraid of war; war is becoming a normal tool for achieving political ambitions.
In short, we live in a dangerous world, characterized by two major hotspots of conflict: internal wars in Africa, which could spread to the continent north of Africa, and the risk of war in China.
The world’s problems today are transnational (climate change, migration, poverty, access to resources, nuclear power). Furthermore, traditional global regulatory bodies, such as the UN, are now powerless. The withdrawal of the United States as the “world’s policeman” marks a return to isolationism, which historically has had catastrophic consequences, such as after the First World War, which led to the Second World War and 60 million deaths.
Alain Boinet
General de Gaulle wrote: “The moral strength of a people, its will to resist, to fight for its freedom, is what ultimately guarantees victory. It is in adversity that the true greatness of a nation is revealed.” Do you think the French population is currently aware of the risks of possible wars in Europe and the world? Is there enough moral strength in France to face them, to defend its freedom, its independence, its sovereignty?
Vincent Desportes
This crucial question was brought to the forefront again by the Chief of the Defence Staff in his latest speech. First, regarding awareness. I believe the French lack this awareness of the risk because they are unaware that they have left behind the world of yesterday, where they were protected from war. They are unaware that we have returned to historical normality, which, unfortunately, used war as a tool for regulating the world. This is precisely why it is so important that, as the Minister for the Armed Forces has done, and as the Chief of the Defence Staff (CEMA) has just done, we try to make the world and the French people aware of this risk.
Especially since political power is weakened today. The French still believe that the Americans will defend them because, rightly so, they have been present since 1949. But the world of yesterday is gone. It is clear that the Americans will not remain in Europe. The American vice president made this very clear at the Munich Conference last spring: “You cannot believe that we will remain in Europe forever to defend you.” So it will be up to us to defend ourselves. The French must realize that our values, our democracy, our freedom are not a given and that one day they will have to be defended. The Americans say: “Freedom is not free. “
My generation, even though we didn’t experience war firsthand, still has a profound awareness of what war and its horrors can be because we had family members who died during the World Wars. Younger generations have lost interest in war because they believed it was over. But war was only over for us, because we had created a positive peace in Europe. Because we had suffered so much from the war, we had invented something, but it was a dream. We thought we were a model, but we were merely an exception that no one in the world has imitated, and today that exception is threatened. So, indeed, the French must become aware of this threat if they want to protect their exceptional character, our civilization, which is humanism.
Furthermore, globalization, initiated by the Americans and initially benefiting the American economy, has had two unintended negative consequences for us. First, when one is a “citizen of the world,” one is no longer a citizen of France, or at least it becomes difficult to be both a citizen of France and a citizen of the world. A significant portion of young people do not grasp these issues, nor do they understand the age-old adage of La Fontaine: “Might makes right.”
The second phenomenon is that globalization has had the unintended consequence of exacerbating nationalism. Young people in the globalized world no longer understand where they are, no longer know what identity to cling to. The awareness of the necessity of the nation, which is the place where one lives, has disappeared. Thus, there is much to be done today if we want the French to have the courage to defend what is important to them.
Eisenhower said, “Neither liberty nor democracy is a given. When threatened, each generation must have the courage to rise up and defend them.” Current generations will have to defend what they have long believed to be an eternal given of the world.
Alain Boinet
How would you like to conclude?
Vincent Desportes
We Westerners are not superior to others, but we exist in a world that has gradually improved. It’s clear that there are things we French, we Europeans, have done that we now reject. But the defining characteristic of our civilization, and this is what makes it extraordinary, is that it is a critical civilization. We are strong enough to take a critical look at what we have done, not to reject it—because we cannot put the past on the world’s tribunal—but to understand that we can do better. And I believe that our Western civilization has reached an exceptional level of humanism. But it is in danger. We have much to defend and also much to lose if our civilization, forged by the wars, struggles, and revolutions that we now reject, is destroyed. These are the same civilizations that have brought us to the world we know today, with its values. We must defend this world, and we must be proud of who we are and what we have built.
Vincent Desportes:
Vincent Desportes is a major general (2S) in the armored branch where he has held commands in combat units and in headquarters.
A graduate of Saint Cyrien, he has collected university degrees, including a DEA in sociology and a doctorate in history.
A graduate of the United States Army War College, he was a military attaché at the French Embassy in the United States and commanded the Joint Defense Center.
Professor at Sciences Po Paris and HEC, he has published numerous books including “Entrer en stratégie” with Robert Laffont in 2019 and “Devenez leader” with Odile Jacob in 2023.
Vincent Desportes is recognized for his strategic thinking, independence of mind and opinion.