Let’s start with a paradox: in opinion polls, the international situation is very far behind purchasing power, global warming or immigration in the concerns of the French for this presidential election. However, social networks are buzzing with real concern about Russian or American ambitions in eastern Europe, and in 20 minutes, we have noticed that our Ukraine-Russia lives are hitting audiences (thank you by the way). But can there be between the two? And if part of the election, of the behavior of the voters, was played out in the Crimea or in the Donbass?
For Jean-Daniel Levy, Deputy Director of the Harris Interactive Institute and contacted by 20 minutes, it is the international stature of the candidates that is at stake here, their “presidentiality”. “As soon as we have the impression that a person can make France shine beyond the borders, this person is more appreciated, respected”, he explains, citing the meeting between Nicolas Sarkozy and Vladimir Poutine at the time of the crisis in Georgia. If he could not prevent the Russian president from attacking, “it did not harm” the French, since he had “acted”, he insists. And among the candidates, there is one who can do better than the others: the undeclared Emmanuel Macron.
The monopoly of the power to act
“First because as president, he can act”, points out Jean-Daniel Levy, who also notes that the current tenant of the Elysée “gives the impression of mastering and knowing what he is doing. “. This desire to act internationally to carve out a presidential costume has been visible for several months. Last October, information and communication science researcher Alexandre Eyries, interviewed by 20 minutes, already spoke of a “speech struck from the corner of experience”. In the midst of discussions to maintain peace, Emmanuel Macron counts, and he obtained this Sunday from Vladimir Putin a desire to achieve a ceasefire.
Alongside the current president, who had made an impression by being the first Western leader to travel to Kiev and Moscow, “the others have a little trouble appearing credible”, judges Jean-Daniel Levy. However, it is not for lack of trying to take part in the debate, like Sandrine Rousseau asking for Ukraine to join the European Union, or Valérie Pécresse demanding “a speech of steely firmness” against Vladimir Putin. But the LR candidate is also ready to give Moscow the promise to tell Ukraine that its NATO membership “is not on the agenda”, which may sound like an admission of weakness.
“Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s positions on Venezuela were not detrimental to him”
On the far right, the subject is not really privileged to attract voters. Eric Zemmour takes the opportunity above all to recall his attachment to the idea of sovereignty of France, believing that Emmanuel Macron is “the little telegraph operator” of NATO. An expression that was mainly retained for its fairly dated reference, but which says nothing about the diplomacy that the polemicist would lead. As for Marine Le Pen, who believes that “diplomacy is not done at the last moment”, the RN candidate is often on the edge when speaking of Russia, since Russian funding for her last campaign could resurface.
However, even if “we can think that the most pro-Russian are Jean-Luc Mélenchon and Fabien Roussel, we can see that Mélenchon’s positions on Venezuela have not been detrimental to him”, notes Jean-Daniel Levy again. The LFI leader wants a “non-aligned” France, insisting on respect for the Ukrainian border while refusing the Americans “to annex Ukraine into NATO”.
In the end, the only one who can score points in the current situation seems to be Emmanuel Macron, whatever stature the other candidates may try to give themselves by speaking out which will not resonate “beyond our borders”. However, this is where “the fundamental question” of the relationship between the election and the diplomatic crisis lies, according to Jean-Daniel Levy. There remains a hiatus: what if war is declared? The deputy director of Harris Interactive admits having “no idea” of the consequences on the election, since we “do not know the decisions that could be taken”, nor the warlike or pacifist positions of the candidates who are up against the wall.