The way I see it France is a failed hegemon. Go back two, three hundred years and France had the sort of demographic weight that Russia eventually acquired in Europe. The early modern empires that preceded France's rise - the Ottomans, the Spanish - were built on the backbone of minority populations, namely the turks and the castillians. But unlike Russia, the huge french population was all concentrated in a much smaller territory. Wars had been fought in Europe for a long time as a means to try and contain France.

Since then France failed to evolve into the top industrial power. France was a country with massive agricultural potential. But so was Austria, Germany and Russia. All three experienced population booms once their borders stabilized in the 1800s. To make matters worse, in the era of coal and steel the french did not compete with Britain or Germany, they were on Austria's league. Think about that for a second. Everyone sees the Austrian Empire as a basketcase but it had steel outputs approaching that of France for certain late periods. What little France had going for it was a second rate colonial empire, infuriatingly good PR capable of surviving all of the country's failures, and status as a military power. Unfortunately for the french what really counted was the latter, and they fell for the same sort of stagnation that had cursed Prussia in the napoleonic wars. Just as Frederick the Great before him, Napoleon left behind a military estabilishment meant to support himself and his role as supreme commander, while lacking in the tools necessary to evolve past him. Hence the Franco-Prussian war debacle.

Fast forward to the post war period France kinda stands out from the major powers of Europe because unlike Germany and Italy it wasn't occupied by the US, and unlike Britain it doesn't see itself as a privileged partner of a cultural kin. France also understands that it is ultimately a dead end in terms of demographics and geography. It can't be the preeminent industrial power of Europe. That will always be Germany. Hell, Italy isn't far behind France. And yet it constantly tries to be the head of Europe. At points the french believed they'd be the financial power behind Germany. Or that at least they'll get to be the military power that pushes the EU into a new era. So they are always making or at least trying to make these deals. Speaking of Brazil, the french didn't just want to sell us planes, people in the know have told me that they wanted it to be the beginnings of a military alliance. Or at least of some sort of NATO-Brazil cooperation that goes through the french. Problem is the brazilians wanted tech transfers and industrial cooperation, which the french were cagey about. So we went with Sweden instead.

The way I see it the French are as atlanticist as everybody else. Of course they are. If you're european then the rules based international order was good for you. But they also kinda want to act with strategic autonomy. It's just that they just can't follow through to the end. I don't know why exactly. Is it a remnant of their 1800s foreign policy culture of seeking soft power wins above all else? Is it a lack of resources to do so? Is it a lack of unity under this or that political project? Lack of opportunity? What I'm interested to see is wether the french protests will force Macron to derail the EU-Mercosur FTA or, on the contrary, if he'll lack the political capital to resist pressure from the rest of Europe.

France has always seemed a little uncomfortable being under the US Empire. They left NATO at one point, they have their own nukes that are outside of the US command structure, they maintain their own French colonies instead of having America/NATO do it, shit like that.

accidentally emailing macron confidential state enterprise documents under the heading '5 trillion BRI EU investment plan'