Contenu du sommaire : Le débat stratégique en revue

The General secretariat for defence and national security (Secrétariat général de la défense et de la sécurité nationale—SGDSN) is the successor to an institution created in 1906 and is a major player in France. It continually adapts its organisation and inter-ministerial approach in order to be more effective and to respond to new threats, such as cyber threats and terrorism. In that way it reinforces its central role.

Defense industry is a key element in our independence. The Direction générale de l'armement (DGA), the procurement organisation, contributes directly to steering and advancing the industry, whose economic and technical returns are vital. The DGA prepares for the future both through the decisions taken and through development of the necessary competences.

The Gendarmerie has been controlled by the Ministry of the Interior since 2009 but maintains close ties to its military identity and participates in defense missions with great effectiveness, using its own assets with specially trained personnel, and also in support of the armed forces, notably in the military policing function during external operations.

Credible defense policy requires strong defense industry. France has this capability yet it requires continued budgetary effort. In the field of aeronautics, Dassault is a major player, contributing to preparation for the future through its flagship programmes such as Rafale.

The study of warfare has long been a thorny issue in France, given the degree of mistrust that has existed between the academic and military worlds. Under the pressure of contemporary strategic reality war studies are becoming more effective, and are supported by institutional players such as the Ministry of Defense, universities, military personnel and researchers.

The next President of the Republic will face a profoundly changed strategic situation that has significant implications for our defense. This means greater effort will be needed as well as continuation of developments in intelligence and in giving form to European defended.

Germany's position on defense and security issues has evolved in the face of new geostrategic limitations. Berlin is seeking to become a player whilst remaining conscious of certain fundamental issues relating to its history. France, a major partner, needs to make effort and compromise to re-launch the European project.

Brexit is unlikely to simplify London's foreign and defense policy. The nature of its links with the European Union and its member countries remains vague, and the position of the United Kingdom will need to be redefined—with NATO and Washington, too.

The United Kingdom's decision on Brexit carries with it significant strategic implications. Withdrawal from the European Union does not mean lack of interest for the defense of Europe, especially since NATO has that in hand and that London and Paris are firmly committed together on defense matters.

European defence is once again becoming a political priority, given a severely degraded geopolitical context. Though there have been modest achievements to date, there now needs to be a burst of effort, since denial would lead to disaster and marginalisation of Europe.

The relationship between defence and the economy is a complex one that needs to be examined carefully, since the defence economy also contributes to the development of industries. Work began from 1945 in the United States and continues today to feed prospective research.

The concept of strategic surprise is much in vogue, and yet examination of the facts shows that it is a failure of strategic intelligence, thus an inability to understand and analyse precursor signs. Recent conflicts have demonstrated the difficulty of thinking about the post-conflict period, which is currently, and notably a source of political disaster in Iraq.

France has been reinvesting in the Asia-Pacific region for the past thirty years, to contribute to its security through bilateral activity and participation in the regularly organised forums. This dimension of our defence and security policy is worthy of better understanding-in particular within certain circles in Paris.

The Middle East is in permanent state of change in which the complexity of relationships does nothing to favour development. Crises there are long lasting, and involve numerous players whose rivalry is exacerbated by antagonistic ambition. The spheres of influence supported by the United States and Russia-Sunni and Shiite-continue to confront each other.

Sport has become a major geopolitical function that controls international relationships in a soft power mode. Whilst it has been manipulated for political reasons since 1936, it is now able to build bridges and see beyond a number of antagonisms.

The Baltic is an area of tension with Russia. Worried by Moscow's demonstrations of force, Sweden has decided to re-establish a military presence on the island of Gotland, whose geographical position gives it a strategic role in a crisis situation.

The high seas belong to nobody. They are an area of freedom for humanity yet also providers of many resources. Their protection is therefore essential but requires complex negotiations between all the players concerned, whose approaches are different and even antagonistic. Discussions are set to last a long time.

The military map of France has seen numerous changes following the reduction in the number of units and therefore of sites across the country. A considerable measure of compensation has in part come from defence industry and plays a structural role in the activity and economy of certain regions.

Open-source intelligence continues to take on greater importance for the conduct of operations as a result of the development of social networks. Its analysis offers a considerable amount of information as long as we have the means to collect and handle it.