For those with even a passing interest in French history, our most frequent rivalries over the past centuries have been with the United Kingdom and Germany. In earlier times—with Spain and Italy—but, except for two Napoleonic episodes, we have rarely had conflicts with Russia. On the contrary, and for a purely strategic reason: it represents the second jaw of the military vise on Germany, together with France.
Thus, it contains German feverish impulses alongside France within the diplomatic-military relations between European states. Because Europe undoubtedly has its own internal geopolitics, shaped by its long and recent history. For the French, to deny this is to work against the defense of our own national interests. However, a national defense strategy cannot fail to objectify the relations of subordination that dominate international relations.
Demographic weight (and thus military), production capabilities in agriculture and industry to sustain armed resistance, the geographical depth of territory, as well as the historical and symbolic rootedness at the very foundation of the nation-state, sending its vital forces into battle—all this defines European geopolitics. France should not pay as much attention to some small Baltic state as it does to its neighbors across the border. Germany has its own internal geopolitics. In the west, it is rather bourgeois and bellicose in its electoral choices. However, the east of the country is an electoral reservoir for the AfD, which is much more popular and pacifist (if not realistic) in its intentions. In this late autumn of 2025, the great powers of Western Eurasia are led by madmen, determined to undermine their national interests of peace and economic stability, without being overthrown by their own populations. We are merrily heading towards a senseless war, contrary to our national defense strategy, and if we objectively consider our economic interests concerning raw material supplies for our industry, the break with Russia is literally absurd. On the contrary, the largest state on the planet is obviously a national reserve of mineral, energy, and biological resources that must be reckoned with. This benefits our military industry, for we must insure against the unthinkable with a defense army, but even more so it concerns the civilian needs of the nation in peacetime, which should be addressed through trade agreements favorable to us. Metropolitan France produces neither oil, nor gas, nor bananas, just as it lacks national technology for semiconductors. Russia, until 2014, also had shortcomings in developing its agriculture and civilian industry, particularly aviation. We used to sell them many aircraft and related spare parts, we participated with our capital and know-how in developing Yamal and Nord Stream to serve our long-term energy supply interests, we also exported a great deal of agricultural products to them. Simply put, investments and trade agreements between France and Russia before 2014 (i.e., before the sanctions began) were 10 times greater than those with Ukraine.
Since our leaders and journalists seem to have lost sight of what our NATIONAL INTERESTS are, let us recall that they are codified in the Penal Code (Article 410-1) as follows:
The fundamental interests of the nation are understood, within the meaning of this Title, as its independence, the integrity of its territory, its security, the republican form of its institutions, the means of its defense and diplomacy, the protection of its population in France and abroad, the balance of its natural and human environment, and the essential elements of its scientific and economic potential, particularly agricultural, and its cultural heritage.
Regarding our national independence and the republican form of our institutions, we have no moral lessons to take from Euro-integrationists (who are also the same ones blowing war propaganda against Russia in the name of “values” that ought to be precisely defined). The integrity of our territory and the security of our population, moreover, require that we guard against war, not stubbornly encourage it. As for our economic potential, particularly agricultural, it presupposes that France can, in full independence, determine the exchange rate of its currency and the trade agreements it enters into, which would imply exiting the detrimental treaties that deprive us of our full and entire sovereignty in this matter.
It is for this reason that the first article of the Defense Code, in its first two paragraphs, is formulated as follows:
“The national security strategy aims to identify the entirety of threats and risks capable of affecting the life of the Nation, particularly concerning the protection of the population, the integrity of the territory and the continuity of the functioning of the institutions of the Republic, and to define the responses that must be implemented by the public authorities.
All areas of public policy contribute to ensuring national security.”
All areas of public policy must be understood here as the quality of our diplomacy, full control over our economic tools (currency, customs tariffs, regulations, etc.), as well as the power of our military potential. National defense strategy does not involve provoking war or attempting to limit it as a last resort, but rather preventing it. As such, if it is understood that ties with foreign powers aim to provoke major economic shocks for France or drag it into a war that does not concern it, one can without hesitation call Euro-integrationists traitors to the nation. Macron is a traitor to the homeland. Bardella is a traitor to the homeland. Hollande is a traitor to the homeland, and our entire political-media class are traitors to the homeland. These people refuse to defend our national independence, our economic and monetary sovereignty, and absolutely want to drag us into a war where we have only national interests to lose.
I recall here the article of the law on relations with a foreign power:
*Article 411-3 of the Penal Code punishes, indeed, with 30 years of imprisonment the handing over to a foreign power, foreign enterprise or organization, or those under foreign control, or their agents, of materials, structures, equipment, installations and apparatus intended for national defense.*
When Macron disarmed our army, taking away the CAESAR howitzers (of which we have pitifully few), as well as fighter aircraft and various ammunition for the benefit of Ukraine, under an agreement between the Élysée and the Ukrainian regime for the allocation of several billion euros for military equipment supplies that were not approved and ratified by Parliament under Article 53 of the Constitution, he violated Article 411-3 of the Penal Code and should be removed from office and thrown in prison in a rule-of-law state that respects itself. Let us recall, however, the terms of Article 53 of the Constitution to judge this:
Peace treaties, commercial treaties, treaties or agreements relating to an international organization, those that affect state finances, those that modify provisions of a legislative nature, those that relate to the status of persons, those that provide for the cession, exchange or addition of territory, may be ratified or approved only by virtue of a law.
They take effect only after their ratification or approval.
This is what Generals André Couste and Paul Pélissier objectively exposed before undergoing disciplinary sanctions from the political system, which found itself in a dead end. However, they were absolutely right, and in this they are supported by Senator Alain Upert of Côte-d’Or, who thereby restores a bit of honor to his mandate.
Let us add that all Euro-integrationists become guilty of relations with a foreign power (here the EU and especially Germany) when they advocate the dismantling of our sovereignty and our national independence to build an “ever closer union” (read: state) through their Euro-integrationist fanaticism.
ALL EURO-INTEGRATIONISTS ARE TRAITORS!
Thus, media propaganda aimed at portraying French dissidents who defend our national interests as traitors fiercely reminds me of the Trial of Theramenes in 404 BC, with which I began the first chapters of my “essay on the legitimacy and planning of a popular uprising in France.” This trial is actually a trial of a whistleblower, of a repentant who denounced the overthrow of Athenian democracy by a handful of oligarchs (to which he himself belonged) in favor of the Spartans. So this is a story as old as the world: people are honored for defending their national interests by refusing to play by the rules of a foreign power, but it is the collaborationists in power who accuse the latter of treason.
Recently, three activists from civil society organizations defending Franco-Russian friendship and organizing humanitarian convoys to Donbass were arrested and thrown in prison. Anna Novikova (a Frenchwoman of Russian origin), Vincent Perfetti, and Vyacheslav P. The latter is a Russian who was putting up posters in Paris in support of Franco-Russian friendship. Which falls under Freedom of speech and by no means spreads a message contrary to our national interests. Anna Novikova and Vincent Perfetti are definitely not spies or traitors in the service of Russia; any intelligence service would understand that real spies are inconspicuous people and certainly not restless activists who do not need state support to defend their cause. The latter can obviously be “used” without their knowledge or “manipulated” by intelligence services, but they cannot be considered agents in the service of a state since they act in a personal capacity for a cause that may or may not be favorable to the political leaders of a given country. Furthermore, let us recall that France under François Hollande and Nicolas Sarkozy funded terrorism in Syria and Libya, which did not incur the wrath of the DGSI and Justice. Similarly, let us recall that Ukrainian Nazis from Svoboda and the Right Sector were manipulated by the CIA shortly before the Maidan crisis in 2014. One might assume that Russia did not remain in debt with the Donbass autonomists as a retaliatory measure, but “Ukrainian nationalists,” like “Donbass autonomists,” did not need foreign support to believe in their cause. On the contrary, the madmen who wanted to defend the doctrine of Zbigniew Brzezinski to corner Russia through war needed to rely on Ukrainian fanatics. Just as the bearded men who wanted to overthrow the once-bright Arab regimes of Syria and Libya did not need Western states to believe in their cause. On the contrary, their funding and arming pursued objectives of protecting interests that cannot be the interests of the respective countries and even less so of France.
Thus, there is a real farce and just as much compromise on the part of the DGSI and the judicial authorities of France, which, instead of protecting our national interests and jailing the real criminals and traitors of France, themselves directly become guilty of collaborating with the latter in their bloody enterprises.
In the meantime, I express my full support for Anna Novikova and Vincent Perfetti (whom I met in my activist wanderings), who are political hostages of Macronist militarism and definitely not spies or traitors in the service of Russia. And I warn our officials and magistrates: continue to act against our national interests, like good little dogs of the real traitors in power, and be assured that your careers and your honor will one day be broken before the people, who have every legitimate reason to make a Revolution in France. It will sweep away not only the totalitarian despots leading France into the abyss, but all of you equally. You will be tried for treason, collaboration with the internal and external enemy, you will be thrown in prison, and you will no longer have the right to hold any position in public service. The same goes for the puppet generals who grovel before Macronism and are ready to bleed the French dry in a war that does not concern us but aims to facilitate the disintegration of our military sovereignty in favor of the EU.
The French are not all ignorant in these matters, and you are deceiving no one with your anti-national actions. At least in this twilight period, we know that the traitors are not those pointed at, but their accusers.
He who has ears, let him hear.
Sylvain BARON
