France's Return into NATO: French Military Culture and Strategic Identity in Question
More than 40 years after the unilateral decision by General de Gaulle to withdraw French forces from NATO's integrated military command, President Sarkozy decided that France would reintegrate the Atlantic Alliance’s military structure, based on "full and complete participation". The decision was endorsed by Parliament and has generated little debate in France, while a majority of French people appear to approve of it.
The implementation has already begun. In 2009, around 200 French officers joined the general staffs in Norfolk, Mons, Naples and Lisbon. Their number will rise to 500 in 2010. This decision is actually a rather logical culmination of a process of "normalization" vis-à-vis NATO, which began in the 1990s with operations in Bosnia and Kosovo, and France’s return to the Military Committee in December 1995. French officers generally favor “reintegration”, seeing it as the end of an uncomfortable position in technical and operational terms. It will also provide career opportunities at a time when reductions in the armed forces" size have greatly reduced periods of responsibility and command. Yet it would be wrong to ignore the potential consequences of such a shift for the military culture of France’s armed forces. Indeed, the “cultural” effects could be especially important for the army, as it has retained a specific culture, modeled by its historical preeminence in France’s armed forces, and by the nature of current NATO operations in Afghanistan.
Also available in:
Regions and themes
Share
Download the full analysis
This page contains only a summary of our work. If you would like to have access to all the information from our research on the subject, you can download the full version in PDF format.
France's Return into NATO: French Military Culture and Strategic Identity in Question
Author(s)
Related centers and programs
Discover our other research centers and programs
Security Studies Center
Heir to a tradition dating back to the founding of Ifri, the Security Studies Center provides public and private decision-makers as well as the general public with the keys to understanding power relations and contemporary modes of conflict as well as those to come. Through its positioning at the juncture of politics and operations, the credibility of its civil-military team and the wide distribution of its publications in French and English, the Center for Security Studies constitutes in the French landscape of think tanks a unique center of research and influence on the national and international defense debate.
Find out more
Discover all our analyses
Military Stockpiles: A Life-Insurance Policy in a High-Intensity Conflict?
The war in Ukraine is a reminder of the place of attrition from high-intensity conflict in European armies that have been cut to the bone after three decades of budget cuts. All European forces have had to reduce their stocks to the bare minimum. As a result, support to Ukraine has meant a significant drain on their operational capabilities. A significant amount of decommissioned systems were also donated, due to the lack of depth in operational fleets.
France’s Place Within NATO: Toward a Strategic Aggiornamento?
With a rapidly deteriorating security environment, a chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, internal disputes exploding into public view, and questions being raised about the scope of its security responsibilities, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) seemed to be in dire straits at the time of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022.
Towards a European Nuclear Deterrent
While major European powers may have to contemplate nuclear deterrence without America, the national flexibility and European financial support required to make it feasible is currently difficult to imagine.
“At the Other Side of the Hill”: The Benefits and False Promises of Battlefield Transparency
Recent conflicts have highlighted a key characteristic of contemporary warfare, unprecedented in its scale and impact on the conduct of operations: “battlefield transparency”.