Repetition is educational : France is facing major threats especially abroad.

 Fabien Mandon, the French Chief of Staff, recently delivered a speech in which he outlined what he considers to be significant foreign threats to national security. His remarks prompted an immediate reaction across the political spectrum, particularly from the Left. This response must be understood within a broader historical context. Throughout the twentieth century, segments of the French Left adopted positions that, in retrospect, were at odds with national strategic interests. Between 1936 and 1940, some left-wing activists engaged in sabotage of munitions production and advocated rapprochement with Nazi Germany. Later, in the 1950s, elements within the same political milieu supported the FLN during the Algerian War—at a time when Algeria was administered as an integral part of France. It is also historically documented that left-leaning militant networks sabotaged munitions produced in France for use by French forces deployed in Indochina, thereby undermining the national war effort. These precedents help explain why contemporary left-wing criticism of Mandon’s warning appears consistent with a long-standing ideological orientation inclined to minimize or reinterpret external threats, particularly those associated with the legacy of the former Soviet sphere.

Criticism also emerged from the political Right, albeit for different reasons. Some right-wing figures argued that Mandon’s assessment was overly alarmist. Such a conclusion, however, requires a selective reading of recent geopolitical developments. It is difficult to overlook the pattern of territorial expansion undertaken by the Russian Federation, including interventions in Georgia, Moldova (Transnistria), and Ukraine. Given France’s commitments under NATO and the European Union, these actions objectively represent potential risks for all European states, including those in Western Europe. Historical memory reinforces this point. The confrontation between American and Soviet forces in Berlin at the end of the Second World War, along with General Patton’s contemporaneous analyses of Stalin’s strategic ambitions, underscores the extent to which the post-war balance of power restrained Soviet expansion. Without the intervention of Allied forces—above all, the United States—the Soviet Union might well have advanced further westward, a scenario facilitated at the time by the political alignment of the French Communist Party with Moscow.

The reluctance of certain right-wing actors to acknowledge present-day threats is all the more problematic given the structural vulnerabilities facing contemporary France. Three dimensions are particularly salient.

1. Demographic and social pressures linked to immigration. France has experienced substantial migratory inflows that impose significant financial costs on the welfare system and contribute to social fragmentation, in part through the emergence of narco-trafficking and other forms of organized criminality.
2. Chronic fiscal deterioration. France has maintained an uninterrupted public deficit since 1974, currently the largest within the European Union. Public debt is expected to reach approximately four trillion euros by the end of President Macron’s second term, raising concerns about long-term fiscal sustainability.
3. Executive governance challenges. President Macron’s second mandate has been marked by declining public approval and widespread concern about the effectiveness of his administration, further eroding institutional credibility during a period of heightened geopolitical uncertainty.

Within this context, Mandon’s decision to articulate a frank assessment of external threats may be interpreted as an act of institutional responsibility. Far from undermining his message, the controversy surrounding his speech highlights the persistent difficulty French political actors have in integrating historical lessons and contemporary strategic realities. As has occurred at other critical moments in French history, the armed forces have issued a warning regarding external dangers, even though they remain constitutionally prohibited from commenting on internal security challenges.