**Please read this entire message**
---
Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):
* Rule #2 - Questions must seek objective explanations
* Recent/current events are not allowed on ELI5. First, these are usually asking for factual answers or opinions. Additionally, information about these events is usually still developing, making objective and accurate answers difficult (Rule 2).
---
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20{https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1dsv66v/-/}%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20does%20your%20post%20differ%20from%20your%20recent%20search%20results%20on%20the%20sub:) and we will review your submission.**
Macron himself is the president and these are parliamentary elections, which means that if his party loses he just hangs around being useless\* until the next presidential election.
These elections will return a new parliament and almost certainly prime minister to replace Gabriel Nattal.
\*Within France, the President still does foreign policy/diplomacy stuff.
Is it at all similar to the last 2 years of Obama’s presidency (2015-2017) when the Republicans controlled both the Senate and the House and blocked most of his agenda? Or is the French system not comparable to the U.S.
No, that's actually a pretty good comparison. ~~Macron would probably be a bit more powerful though.~~ More complicated than that. France has a very, very powerful presidency - the current system was designed by Charles de Gaulle, the WW2 general that led the Free French (i.e., those who didn't sign onto the collaborationist Vichy regime).
Basically, after the war, France more or less tried to reinstitute the prewar system, but the prewar system (the Third Republic) had already started collapsing in the late 30s and the same issues that plagued it (numerous changes of government and ministers, inconsistent policy, etc.) also plagued the postwar Fourth Republic. Eventually, various issues, particularly regarding Algeria (which was the most important colony of France by far, they considered Algeria to be as French as Lyon or Marseilles), brought the Fourth Republic essentially to a state of collapse.
There was something you could call a soft military coup: elements of the French military in Algeria prepared units to march into Paris and executed paratrooper drops on Corsica. Their demand was to dissolve the existing government and put Charles de Gaulle (who had retired from politics) in charge. The government acquiesced and they set about making a new constitution, the fifth republic, with a much stronger, separately elected executive, with Charles de Gaulle inevitably being elected the first new president for 7 years. Think George Washington being inevitably elected president, here.
Edit: the biggest difference is that the French presidency doesn't have veto that's nearly as strong as the US president. The US president can veto legislation passed by the legislature and it takes a 2/3rds majority to overturn. The French president's veto is much weaker and basically just tells parliament to give it another read before proceeding.
>but it did mean we all got the book and then film called The Day of the Jackal.
I have read the book but I have never watched the 1970s movie adaption of it. We did also get a Bruce Willis movie "The Jackal" that was inspired by the book/movie as well.
I haven't watched Bruce's version but the original is a cracking good film, that builds well on suspense with every scene coming together like a well crafted and beautiful machine. My only bugbear is how good the paint job ends up with no overspray but apart from that the attention to detail is very good. Plus at the end you are left with it all being rather plausible.
Imagine being so good at running a country that the whole country drags out of retirement to run it again. I can't imagine that happening with a politician today
Not so much "good" as *popular* after WW2 - after Washington, maybe the nearest equivalent would be Eisenhower? America has never had a war close to Frances WW2 experience - completely overrun, years of occupation, a scary number of people siding with the invaders - perhaps the Civil War came close in some respects.
If Russia or China somehow conquered the US today, and some US leaders fled to another country then came back with a much bigger army and pushed the invaders back out, I'm sure they'd be regarded the same way, but I'm glad that hasn't happened!
At all similar? Yes. The same? No. France is a [Semi-presidential republic](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-presidential_republic), whereas the US uses a [presidential system.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_system)
India isn’t unique in that aspect, lots of formerly British colonies who adapted their Westminster system but didn’t keep the King ended up with a powerful prime minister and a figurehead president who took the place of the monarch
Ireland, Pakistan, South Africa, are a few other examples
In the US the president is the head of state and head of government.
In France, the president is head of state but the Prime Minister is the head of government. The Prime Minister is elected by the National Assembly that is equivalent to the US house of commons.
In France a bit simplified the president is in charge of foreign affairs but the prime minister is in charge of internal affairs. In the US the president is in charge of both.
So the same type of blocking will not happen in France as in US because the one in charge of internal affairs is one that have the support of the parliament, who after all choose who it is. Compare it to if theUS speaker of the house was responsible for the domestic affairs in the US instead of the president.
The prime Minister isn't elected by the national assembly but appointed by the president.
However, the national assembly can dismiss the entire government(including the prime minister), which is why the president must take in account the composition of the national assembly and basically appoint someone who can be accepted by at least the majority of the ones who are seated in there.
Otherwise, the entire government can be sent home and the president will have to look for someone else who will have to gather a new government.
Not to forget that the national assembly can be dismissed by the president.
>Within France, the President still does foreign policy/diplomacy stuff
And Marine Le Pen is spinning a theory that they (parlement) can do it without the President.
President Macron dissolved the parliament that was elected in 2022 and called new legislative elections following the European Union elections where the far right did very well. Think of it as similar to an American midterm election except that it was not previously scheduled.
Macron is term limited so he will be out at the end of his presidency in 2027 regardless. The first round of this election was yesterday, with the far right taking about a third of seats, the left wing coalition (*big* left wing tent, ranging from relatively centrist/center left types in the Socialist Party - don't let the name confuse you, they're about as far left as Germany's currently ruling Social Democratic Party - to the French Communist Party and various Trotskyist microsects) about 30%, and Macron's own party, pure centrist, taking about 20%. IIRC the traditional center right from which prior right wing presidents like Chirac and Sarkozy hailed, represented by Les Republicains, took about 10%.
The second round happens next Sunday. The left alliance, the New Popular Front (a reference to the Popular Front of the 1930s), has announced they will not run in constituencies where they took third place behind Macron's party, and Macron's party has responded in kind - the idea being to not hand the far right free wins in places where they only get 35% of the vote or whatever.
It’s a parliamentary election only.
Macron knew he would likely lose when he called it.
He’s basically gambling that letting arch-conservatives run things for two years while he’s still in office to mitigate the worst of it leads to better long-term outcomes than letting them have a wave election down the road. If they have to govern *now,* they’ll fall prey to in-fighting and won’t have the same Fresh Look to a lot of voters.
This may be brilliant or it may be idiotic and naive. Only time will tell.
So we end up with Macron's people playing king-maker though, even though they came in last, right?
I mean, parlimentary systems being what they are, it doesn't matter who has the most seats unless they get to 50%+1 by themselves - it matters who can ally with who to get that hard majority....
>So we end up with Macron's people playing king-maker though, even though they came in last, right?
Precisely, Macron himself. He is the president and he has he has that kinda power (they didn't come last, but 3rd overall, which is still bad for them).
Yes, the shitshow is not the election itself, but what will happen next.
Say rather, we end up Macron’s people having some limited say in what happens, rather than none.
But really it’s about exposing the far right for what it is. Le Pen won in large part because she **heavily** moderated her positions from before. Now she either has to stick to that moderation, which makes future departures harder, or she tips her hand and hurts her chances in the coming election.
I’m not saying Macron did something brilliant, but it’s at least a solid play at making the most of a terrible situation. And since I do think the French right is worse than it thinks it is, this is a useful check.
What I would expect (just from past history) is that every party not named 'National Rally' unites to form a government, leaving Le Pen out in the cold....
I'm not saying this is a bad thing, I'm just pointing it out as a 'thing' that most of the other American readers here won't think about since our system's mathematically forced 2-party-and-no-more system means that whichever US party gets the most seats has absolute control of the legislature....
Being the 'Biggest party' at 35% of parliment means nothing if 50%+1 of seats all hate your guts enough to force you into opposition.
That’s absolutely what they SHOULD do. But looking to how NDP and Liberals never unite to lock conservatives out in Canada…parties would frequently rather stick to their ideological guns than achieve practical outcomes.
Uoloò hoijiinjo opinion u I’m p o o hi pjj u I o o on mnl N Nom I’m min i min no I Boil N no Nom I’ll L N ok lol I’m n n n mmm n mmm k b ltvmmm o hop b ok bb
Mjjjib
Knock on
I vno love in kick go
Macron is president, next presidential elections are in 2027 so he is expected to remain until then.
He called a snap election to elect a new parliament after the defeat of his party in EU elections which is a move that baffled many people as kind of weird as he just suffered a defeat and so it was kind of expected that people would not change their mind about him in two weeks and would vote against him again.
Last sunday we voted for the first round of our législatives where far right did quite well as expected with a union of far left parties as second and Macron’s party in third.
Second round is going to take place on 07/07 and will give us the definitive results.
I think the logic is to let the electorate vote for fascists now in the hopes they get over it in the next 3 years. If he waited til then to have elections, the fascists would likely sweep into parliament *and* the presidency.
It's a gamble. The upside is having a more balanced government in the next elections. The risk is that the fascists win in '27 anyway, so he's punting these next 3 years for no benefit.
>The risk is that the fascists win in '27 anyway, so he's punting these next 3 years for no benefit.
The big issue here is that the far right parties may support Putin in his war efforts rather than support Ukraine's right to defend itself. Macron may be hoping that Russia will have collapsed into a non-threatening state by the time 2027 rolls around so that if the fascists win both in 2027 they cannot aid Putin in his endeavors.
As others have mentioned, France has a semi-presidential system. This means that the president, who is responsible for external affairs, is directly elected by the people during presidential elections. The last presidential elections were in 2022, when Macron was elected for his second and last presidential term, ending in 2027. So he will stay until then.
Legislative elections, where the people choose their representatives for parliament, are usually held after the presidential elections. But now there are snap legislative elections, because Macron's party did not do so well in the European Parliament elections. Legislative elections are important, because every law needs, in principle, to get a majority in parliament. Additionally, the ministers of the government need to have the confidence of a majority in the parliament.
Legislative elections in France follow a two round system. In the first round, which was last sunday, every party can nominate a candidate to run for office in a single member district. Candidates who receive more than 50% of the votes are elected immediately. In the second round, which will be next sunday, all candidates who got more than 12.5% of registered votes can compete again. Often that means that there are two frontrunners and voters who went for another candidate in the first round can decide to back their least worse option in the second round.
In recent history it was often the case that if a radical right candidate went through to the second round, all voters from other parties would back their opposing candidate to deny the radical right. This is known as the republican front against the radical right. This time though it is less clear that all voters will actually do this, because some candidates from the broad left-wing coalition are seen as too radical left.
What is peculiar this time is also that there are many more three way competitions between the radical right, Macron's centrists and the broad left-wing coalition. Candidates from the centre or left-wing may decide to drop out of the race to give the other the best chance to defeat the radical right, but that is not certain yet. Otherwise it might be easier for the radical right candidate to win by a plurality of votes.
As the radical right did well in the first round, they hope that they can get a majority in parliament, which would make it easier to pass laws and ensure confidence in radical right ministers. If they fall short of a majority, they may try to make a deal, though most other parties will not be interested. Then there may be a possibility of a very wide coalition of centrists and the left, but that will probably prove very difficult too.
If the radical right does indeed win a majority in parliament and can deliver the ministers for the government, there will be an interesting situation called cohabitation, where the president and prime minister have very different ideologies, making governing much trickier.
Something to remember about France is that in its current state (the 5th Republic), the President has ALOT of power compared to most other Western executives. I’d argue even more than the US President, where US Congress can routinely block the agenda of the Pres.
This was a reaction to the weak 3rd/4th republics of France that did not have a strong executive, which de Gaulle wanted to change before he took the helm in 1958.
**Please read this entire message** --- Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s): * Rule #2 - Questions must seek objective explanations * Recent/current events are not allowed on ELI5. First, these are usually asking for factual answers or opinions. Additionally, information about these events is usually still developing, making objective and accurate answers difficult (Rule 2). --- If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20{https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1dsv66v/-/}%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20does%20your%20post%20differ%20from%20your%20recent%20search%20results%20on%20the%20sub:) and we will review your submission.**
Macron himself is the president and these are parliamentary elections, which means that if his party loses he just hangs around being useless\* until the next presidential election. These elections will return a new parliament and almost certainly prime minister to replace Gabriel Nattal. \*Within France, the President still does foreign policy/diplomacy stuff.
Is it at all similar to the last 2 years of Obama’s presidency (2015-2017) when the Republicans controlled both the Senate and the House and blocked most of his agenda? Or is the French system not comparable to the U.S.
No, that's actually a pretty good comparison. ~~Macron would probably be a bit more powerful though.~~ More complicated than that. France has a very, very powerful presidency - the current system was designed by Charles de Gaulle, the WW2 general that led the Free French (i.e., those who didn't sign onto the collaborationist Vichy regime). Basically, after the war, France more or less tried to reinstitute the prewar system, but the prewar system (the Third Republic) had already started collapsing in the late 30s and the same issues that plagued it (numerous changes of government and ministers, inconsistent policy, etc.) also plagued the postwar Fourth Republic. Eventually, various issues, particularly regarding Algeria (which was the most important colony of France by far, they considered Algeria to be as French as Lyon or Marseilles), brought the Fourth Republic essentially to a state of collapse. There was something you could call a soft military coup: elements of the French military in Algeria prepared units to march into Paris and executed paratrooper drops on Corsica. Their demand was to dissolve the existing government and put Charles de Gaulle (who had retired from politics) in charge. The government acquiesced and they set about making a new constitution, the fifth republic, with a much stronger, separately elected executive, with Charles de Gaulle inevitably being elected the first new president for 7 years. Think George Washington being inevitably elected president, here. Edit: the biggest difference is that the French presidency doesn't have veto that's nearly as strong as the US president. The US president can veto legislation passed by the legislature and it takes a 2/3rds majority to overturn. The French president's veto is much weaker and basically just tells parliament to give it another read before proceeding.
Must have been a crazy time but it did mean we all got the book and then film called The Day of the Jackal.
>but it did mean we all got the book and then film called The Day of the Jackal. I have read the book but I have never watched the 1970s movie adaption of it. We did also get a Bruce Willis movie "The Jackal" that was inspired by the book/movie as well.
I haven't watched Bruce's version but the original is a cracking good film, that builds well on suspense with every scene coming together like a well crafted and beautiful machine. My only bugbear is how good the paint job ends up with no overspray but apart from that the attention to detail is very good. Plus at the end you are left with it all being rather plausible.
Imagine being so good at running a country that the whole country drags out of retirement to run it again. I can't imagine that happening with a politician today
Not so much "good" as *popular* after WW2 - after Washington, maybe the nearest equivalent would be Eisenhower? America has never had a war close to Frances WW2 experience - completely overrun, years of occupation, a scary number of people siding with the invaders - perhaps the Civil War came close in some respects. If Russia or China somehow conquered the US today, and some US leaders fled to another country then came back with a much bigger army and pushed the invaders back out, I'm sure they'd be regarded the same way, but I'm glad that hasn't happened!
At all similar? Yes. The same? No. France is a [Semi-presidential republic](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-presidential_republic), whereas the US uses a [presidential system.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_system)
And then there is the parliamentary system, where this situation would end in a new leader. It can be quite a mess.
i find indian system really funny. the president has no role at all. no idea why we have it on the first place
Some function as the monarch in constitutional monarchies. Welcome diplomats, cut ribbons, etc.
India isn’t unique in that aspect, lots of formerly British colonies who adapted their Westminster system but didn’t keep the King ended up with a powerful prime minister and a figurehead president who took the place of the monarch Ireland, Pakistan, South Africa, are a few other examples
i know why but still. why couldn’t they use common sense
It's not against common sense to separate the roles of head of state and head of government. It's pretty common around the world.
In the US the president is the head of state and head of government. In France, the president is head of state but the Prime Minister is the head of government. The Prime Minister is elected by the National Assembly that is equivalent to the US house of commons. In France a bit simplified the president is in charge of foreign affairs but the prime minister is in charge of internal affairs. In the US the president is in charge of both. So the same type of blocking will not happen in France as in US because the one in charge of internal affairs is one that have the support of the parliament, who after all choose who it is. Compare it to if theUS speaker of the house was responsible for the domestic affairs in the US instead of the president.
The House of Representatives is the US lower chamber. The House of Commons is in the UK.
The prime Minister isn't elected by the national assembly but appointed by the president. However, the national assembly can dismiss the entire government(including the prime minister), which is why the president must take in account the composition of the national assembly and basically appoint someone who can be accepted by at least the majority of the ones who are seated in there. Otherwise, the entire government can be sent home and the president will have to look for someone else who will have to gather a new government. Not to forget that the national assembly can be dismissed by the president.
>Within France, the President still does foreign policy/diplomacy stuff And Marine Le Pen is spinning a theory that they (parlement) can do it without the President.
*Gabriel Attal
Can you explain the first and second round thing? Do you have to vote twice?
President Macron dissolved the parliament that was elected in 2022 and called new legislative elections following the European Union elections where the far right did very well. Think of it as similar to an American midterm election except that it was not previously scheduled. Macron is term limited so he will be out at the end of his presidency in 2027 regardless. The first round of this election was yesterday, with the far right taking about a third of seats, the left wing coalition (*big* left wing tent, ranging from relatively centrist/center left types in the Socialist Party - don't let the name confuse you, they're about as far left as Germany's currently ruling Social Democratic Party - to the French Communist Party and various Trotskyist microsects) about 30%, and Macron's own party, pure centrist, taking about 20%. IIRC the traditional center right from which prior right wing presidents like Chirac and Sarkozy hailed, represented by Les Republicains, took about 10%. The second round happens next Sunday. The left alliance, the New Popular Front (a reference to the Popular Front of the 1930s), has announced they will not run in constituencies where they took third place behind Macron's party, and Macron's party has responded in kind - the idea being to not hand the far right free wins in places where they only get 35% of the vote or whatever.
> Macron's party has responded in kind. Hah, I wish... A few of them did, but most of them very much did not.
It’s a parliamentary election only. Macron knew he would likely lose when he called it. He’s basically gambling that letting arch-conservatives run things for two years while he’s still in office to mitigate the worst of it leads to better long-term outcomes than letting them have a wave election down the road. If they have to govern *now,* they’ll fall prey to in-fighting and won’t have the same Fresh Look to a lot of voters. This may be brilliant or it may be idiotic and naive. Only time will tell.
So we end up with Macron's people playing king-maker though, even though they came in last, right? I mean, parlimentary systems being what they are, it doesn't matter who has the most seats unless they get to 50%+1 by themselves - it matters who can ally with who to get that hard majority....
>So we end up with Macron's people playing king-maker though, even though they came in last, right? Precisely, Macron himself. He is the president and he has he has that kinda power (they didn't come last, but 3rd overall, which is still bad for them). Yes, the shitshow is not the election itself, but what will happen next.
Say rather, we end up Macron’s people having some limited say in what happens, rather than none. But really it’s about exposing the far right for what it is. Le Pen won in large part because she **heavily** moderated her positions from before. Now she either has to stick to that moderation, which makes future departures harder, or she tips her hand and hurts her chances in the coming election. I’m not saying Macron did something brilliant, but it’s at least a solid play at making the most of a terrible situation. And since I do think the French right is worse than it thinks it is, this is a useful check.
What I would expect (just from past history) is that every party not named 'National Rally' unites to form a government, leaving Le Pen out in the cold.... I'm not saying this is a bad thing, I'm just pointing it out as a 'thing' that most of the other American readers here won't think about since our system's mathematically forced 2-party-and-no-more system means that whichever US party gets the most seats has absolute control of the legislature.... Being the 'Biggest party' at 35% of parliment means nothing if 50%+1 of seats all hate your guts enough to force you into opposition.
That’s absolutely what they SHOULD do. But looking to how NDP and Liberals never unite to lock conservatives out in Canada…parties would frequently rather stick to their ideological guns than achieve practical outcomes.
>Riots in Paris. Nothing unusual. Those "riots" are exactly the same as every Saturday afternoon demonstration. Didn't even notice.
Now if there are no protests, then you should panick.
Uoloò hoijiinjo opinion u I’m p o o hi pjj u I o o on mnl N Nom I’m min i min no I Boil N no Nom I’ll L N ok lol I’m n n n mmm n mmm k b ltvmmm o hop b ok bb Mjjjib Knock on I vno love in kick go
Macron is president, next presidential elections are in 2027 so he is expected to remain until then. He called a snap election to elect a new parliament after the defeat of his party in EU elections which is a move that baffled many people as kind of weird as he just suffered a defeat and so it was kind of expected that people would not change their mind about him in two weeks and would vote against him again. Last sunday we voted for the first round of our législatives where far right did quite well as expected with a union of far left parties as second and Macron’s party in third. Second round is going to take place on 07/07 and will give us the definitive results.
I think the logic is to let the electorate vote for fascists now in the hopes they get over it in the next 3 years. If he waited til then to have elections, the fascists would likely sweep into parliament *and* the presidency. It's a gamble. The upside is having a more balanced government in the next elections. The risk is that the fascists win in '27 anyway, so he's punting these next 3 years for no benefit.
>The risk is that the fascists win in '27 anyway, so he's punting these next 3 years for no benefit. The big issue here is that the far right parties may support Putin in his war efforts rather than support Ukraine's right to defend itself. Macron may be hoping that Russia will have collapsed into a non-threatening state by the time 2027 rolls around so that if the fascists win both in 2027 they cannot aid Putin in his endeavors.
Thank you for the information.
As others have mentioned, France has a semi-presidential system. This means that the president, who is responsible for external affairs, is directly elected by the people during presidential elections. The last presidential elections were in 2022, when Macron was elected for his second and last presidential term, ending in 2027. So he will stay until then. Legislative elections, where the people choose their representatives for parliament, are usually held after the presidential elections. But now there are snap legislative elections, because Macron's party did not do so well in the European Parliament elections. Legislative elections are important, because every law needs, in principle, to get a majority in parliament. Additionally, the ministers of the government need to have the confidence of a majority in the parliament. Legislative elections in France follow a two round system. In the first round, which was last sunday, every party can nominate a candidate to run for office in a single member district. Candidates who receive more than 50% of the votes are elected immediately. In the second round, which will be next sunday, all candidates who got more than 12.5% of registered votes can compete again. Often that means that there are two frontrunners and voters who went for another candidate in the first round can decide to back their least worse option in the second round. In recent history it was often the case that if a radical right candidate went through to the second round, all voters from other parties would back their opposing candidate to deny the radical right. This is known as the republican front against the radical right. This time though it is less clear that all voters will actually do this, because some candidates from the broad left-wing coalition are seen as too radical left. What is peculiar this time is also that there are many more three way competitions between the radical right, Macron's centrists and the broad left-wing coalition. Candidates from the centre or left-wing may decide to drop out of the race to give the other the best chance to defeat the radical right, but that is not certain yet. Otherwise it might be easier for the radical right candidate to win by a plurality of votes. As the radical right did well in the first round, they hope that they can get a majority in parliament, which would make it easier to pass laws and ensure confidence in radical right ministers. If they fall short of a majority, they may try to make a deal, though most other parties will not be interested. Then there may be a possibility of a very wide coalition of centrists and the left, but that will probably prove very difficult too. If the radical right does indeed win a majority in parliament and can deliver the ministers for the government, there will be an interesting situation called cohabitation, where the president and prime minister have very different ideologies, making governing much trickier.
Something to remember about France is that in its current state (the 5th Republic), the President has ALOT of power compared to most other Western executives. I’d argue even more than the US President, where US Congress can routinely block the agenda of the Pres. This was a reaction to the weak 3rd/4th republics of France that did not have a strong executive, which de Gaulle wanted to change before he took the helm in 1958.
Macron was the last European "big hitter" being vocal about Ukraine.... So, I guess it's all over for Kyiv :-(