Credits: French Army / Wikimedia Commons — Open License.
At the Mayors’ Congress in Paris on 11/18/2025, General Fabien Mandon, chief of the defense staff (CEMA), calls on elected officials to prepare the nation for war and sacrifices human losses and economic effort and defense budget in the name of French deterrence in the face of the Russian threat in Europe. The statement immediately causes a shock and splits LFI, PCF, and RN on one side. Meanwhile, the majority and the Socialists end up on the other side. This reignites the debate over the role of a military chief. In addition, it raises questions about the “three-, four-year” horizon.
A Warning Launched at the Mayors, at the Heart of the Mayors and Local Authorities Fair
Fabien Mandon, chief of the defense staff (CEMA) since 09/01/2025, shook the assembly gathered at the Congress of Mayors of France on 11/18/2025. Before elected officials from across the country, the general urged municipalities to prepare for harder times. He said we will have to accept losing our children on operational theaters and suffer economically. Indeed, this could happen if the national effort shifts toward defense. As a result, he asked mayors to talk about it in their municipalities. Thus, local authorities are placed on the front line of the population’s mental preparation.
These remarks are part of a longer sequence. On 10/22/2025, before lawmakers, Fabien Mandon had already mentioned the need to be “ready for a shock in three, four years” in the face of Russia, while noting that Europe has the industrial and demographic means to withstand the confrontation but lacks “spirit.” In his view, the central issue is European deterrence: the adversary attacks only if it thinks our societies are averse to sacrifice.
What Does “Losing Our Children” Mean?
The phrase chilled the room because it touches on something deeply personal. The CEMA is speaking about soldiers—“our children” in the sense of youth serving under the flag—and about an inherent risk of war that any defense strategy is precisely meant to avoid. Between the lines: without social resilience, European deterrence becomes less credible. Mandon repeats that “Europeans are far stronger than Russia” if, collectively, they show the will to defend themselves.
Another important clarification: the scenario mentioned by the CEMA did not describe a war on French soil, but the possibility of a deployment in eastern Europe, in the shadow of the war in Ukraine to support an ally under attack, within the framework of NATO commitments. The point is to anticipate the unexpected (cyber, drones, hybrid strikes, conventional escalation) and to talk about it bluntly, including with local elected officials who are, in a crisis, decisive actors in preserving cohesion.
Chain Reaction: Support, Condemnation, Fault Lines
The political storm broke on the evening of 11/19/2025. Jean-Luc Mélenchon (LFI) expressed his “total disagreement,” judging that a chief of the defense staff “shouldn’t say that.” The LFI group accuses the CEMA of dramatizing war scenarios and overstepping his role by speaking directly to mayors.
On the left, Fabien Roussel (PCF) denounces a “war-mongering” speech and points to the national mourning inscribed on 51,000 war memorials. Ségolène Royal calls the remarks delusional and anxiety-inducing for young people. She also challenges Emmanuel Macron on the executive’s line.
On the far right, Sébastien Chenu (RN) denounces a “mistake”: the CEMA would not have the legitimacy to make such remarks. In the majority, by contrast, Pieyre-Alexandre Anglade defends the “reality of the threat.” Catherine Vautrin, Minister of the Armed Forces and Veterans, recalls that failing to prepare for a high-intensity war by 2030 would be “a mistake.” Expert voices, such as Jérôme Pellistrandi (Défense nationale), speak of education: making tangible a risk that public opinion struggles to grasp.
Behind the exchange of blows, three lines emerge:
A radical left (LFI) and part of the left (PCF, Socialist figures) denounce war rhetoric. They also criticize the overreach of the military role.
- RN opposes the CEMA’s tone while presenting itself as a guardian of peace.
- The majority and social democrats defend a message of realism and preparedness.
Portrait: Who Is Fabien Mandon?
Born on 10/19/1969 in Montmorency (Val-d’Oise), Fabien Mandon is a fighter pilot who graduated from the École de l’air. He commanded Fighter Squadron 3/13 “Alsace”, then Air Base 702 in Avord. A staff officer, he accumulated combat missions in Africa (notably Chad and the DRC) and in several overseas operations. He has logged 144 combat missions and was promoted to general of the air force.
At the top of the political-military apparatus, he led the military cabinet of the Minister of the Armed Forces. That lasted from 09/01/2020 to 04/30/2023, before he became chief of staff to the President of the Republic (05/01/2023–08/31/2025). His appointment as CEMA was approved by the Council of Ministers on 07/23/2025, with his taking office on 09/01/2025. He is the first air force officer to lead the armed forces in three decades.
His background and networks explain his tone: used to political-military arbitrations, he knows the interfaces between strategy, budget, operations, and public opinion. His remarks are blunt and draw on the military truth-telling register. However, he shocks when he moves that register into the civic space.
“Accepting losses,” for Mandon, describes the ultimate cost that the nation is precisely refusing to bear by making European deterrence credible. It is a paradox that is hard to carry publicly.
What Deterrence and “Spirit” Mean
Conventional and nuclear European deterrence rests on three pillars: capability, credibility, communication. Capability: forces, munitions, industries. Credibility: the political and societal will to assume a high cost. Communication: a signal the adversary can read clearly. When Fabien Mandon emphasizes “spirit,” he links national cohesion and strategic posture. If Western societies are seen as rejecting any loss, the adversary may be tempted to “press its advantage.”
Hence the appeal to mayors. In a crisis, logistics, reception, public order, information: local authorities uphold cohesion. Talking to them “up front” means trying to harden the local link in defense.
The Democratic Limits of the CEMA’s Role
In France, the armed forces are subject to civilian authority: the president is commander-in-chief, the government sets defense policy, and the CEMA advises and implements. A military chief speaking publicly, especially before elected officials, therefore raises a question of scope: is warning already prescribing? Critics (LFI, PCF, RN) believe that by addressing mayors, the CEMA oversteps. Supporters counter that explaining the threat is part of a responsibility.
The real boundary is institutional: no political direction and no challenge to the civilian leadership’s choices. In his speech, Mandon stays with the strategic warning (time horizons, societal vulnerability, industrial needs). But the choice of words “our children” radicalizes the message’s reception.
Strategic Context: Ukraine, Russia, and the 2029-2030 Horizon
The war in Ukraine continues, while Russia combines hybrid pressure (cyber, drones, disinformation) and attrition. European scenarios mention the possibility of an open conflict by 2029, while the French Ministry speaks of a risk of high-intensity conflict by 2030. In this context, France and Europe are accelerating: munitions, stocks, defense industry, reserves, interoperability, European rearmament.
The CEMA highlights a moral imbalance rather than a material one: in his view, Europe “has everything” (know-how, economy, demographics) provided it accepts a budgetary prioritization toward defense and an effort of resilience. It is this signal of will and cohesion that, in his view, deters Moscow.
Decoding a Vocabulary That Offends
- “Accept losing our children”: a shocking phrase meant to express the human cost of a war that strategy is precisely trying to prevent. It revives the memory of the world wars and of town memorials.
- “A shock in three, four years”: this is not a prediction, but a planning horizon. Indeed, it makes it possible to equip the forces, mobilize industry, and raise awareness in society.
- “Spirit”: a moral translation of strategic credibility. Without minimum buy-in, deterrence erodes.
This vocabulary, effective internally, becomes abrasive in public. Hence the accusation of being anxiety-inducing and, conversely, the defense of plainspoken education.
What Remains Unresolved
Several political questions stem from this affair:
- Strategic communication: how do you tell the truth about the risk without paralyzing people? Should there be dedicated formats (notes to mayors, crisis drills, information campaigns) rather than a single standalone phrase?
- Capabilities: where should the budgetary cursor be set between defense, energy transition, and public services? The prioritization argument advanced by the CEMA opens a political debate.
- The role of the armed forces in civic space: what frequency and what frameworks for CEMA public statements?
The Mandon sequence reveals a France divided between the will to anticipate and the fear of warlike rhetoric. It is a reminder that in a democracy, preparing for peace requires both ready forces, informed citizens, and the right words.