I'm far from an expert on French politics, but I decided to do some cursory investigation there because of Macron's often rather radical rhetoric. And I think it comes down to him being a sort of lame duck President. He'll be out of office in 2027 (term limits) and his approval rating is in the 20s-30s, with his party losing its majority in parliament after the 2024 elections.
So he can't do that much. The French President oddly enough does have the power to independently appoint the Prime Minister though which has led to weird things like him (the appointed Prime Minister, after the last one was kicked out by a vote of no confidence) passing things in an undemocratic fashion and then managing to survive multiple votes of confidence thanks to the support of a motley crew of right wing nationalists and left wing socialists.
His Presidency has been generally negative and so I think he's trying to lay out some legacy as framing himself as a sort of hard ass, but it's like a dark barking loudly behind a fence - in large part because there is a fence. Nothing he's proposed will ever happen (and he is well aware of this), so he can be as radical as he wants. It could also be longer term angling to try to eventually play broader role in EU politics, NATO, or whatever else - perhaps especially if the EU does eventually form a multinational military.
You are analysing this from the point of view of the personality of the president. What Macron says is not different from what Sarkozy said, or Chirac, or pretty much all presidents since De Gaulle. The delivery changed, not really the substance. That position is unlikely to change significantly over the long term because it fits the geopolitical interests of the country (and of the EU). There is no significant political movement that is pushing for subservience to a foreign country like there used to be up until the 1990s.
Sarkozy effected a major policy change by rejoining NATO's integrated command. Chirac was aligned on the more traditional policy of independence (including when he carried out nuclear tests).
Since then, the "independence" stance has regressed and weakened to the point that France does not do anything without a German or EU representative by it's side...
> Sarkozy effected a major policy change by rejoining NATO's integrated command.
Macron is not against France being in NATO’s integrated command. Or rather, he would not be if the US were sane.
The issue of the nuclear umbrella and European army are related to NATO, but not mutually exclusive. You cannot understand French recent history if you see it only through the lens of independence with respects to the US.
> Since then, the "independence" stance has regressed and weakened to the point that France does not do anything without a German or EU representative by it's side...
You haven’t been paying attention. The French point of view (well, that of the French government, anyway) is that there is a limit to their economic and military power. They are willing to play nice with their European neighbours because that is a force multiplier and that frees up resources that would otherwise be allocated to European security to do something else* (like international operations about which most other European countries do not care). It is blindingly obvious that France alone would be enough in Ukraine. So of course he’s going to talk to other European governments and try to avoid antagonising them.
* edit: this sounds a by cynical; in reality there are other numerous reasons to be nice with one’s neighbours and it does not boil down only to the military and strategy.
> could also be longer term angling to try to eventually play broader role in EU politics, NATO, or whatever else
He’s trying to preserve the non-proliferation status quo. Either Poland, Finland and Estonia each have nukes or they swap trust from Washington to Paris.
So he can't do that much. The French President oddly enough does have the power to independently appoint the Prime Minister though which has led to weird things like him (the appointed Prime Minister, after the last one was kicked out by a vote of no confidence) passing things in an undemocratic fashion and then managing to survive multiple votes of confidence thanks to the support of a motley crew of right wing nationalists and left wing socialists.
His Presidency has been generally negative and so I think he's trying to lay out some legacy as framing himself as a sort of hard ass, but it's like a dark barking loudly behind a fence - in large part because there is a fence. Nothing he's proposed will ever happen (and he is well aware of this), so he can be as radical as he wants. It could also be longer term angling to try to eventually play broader role in EU politics, NATO, or whatever else - perhaps especially if the EU does eventually form a multinational military.