Search

France’s reaction to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was initially conciliatory. However, the current French President’ statements, Macron, gradually changed, suggesting a potential shift in France's stance. The French president recently suggested troops could be sent to Ukraine to fight the Russians, a move that could significantly impact the course of the war. Our paper aims to address this possibility. How feasible would this be from a military perspective? Second, are there any other relevant political actors that will support it? Third, why has Paris changed its position to such a radical stance? We start from the theoretical design of realist constructivism. Postcolonial theories and the concept of locked-in path dependence supported this research. The methods follow the path of historical synthesis, discourse analysis of key political actors, and text analysis of defense white papers. Quantitative military variables are used to understand France’s and the EU’s military-industrial complex capabilities and assess its potential. The collapse of France’s neocolonial empire in Africa and Russia’s growing influence in the region partially explains Macron’s discourse change. This is correlated with the need to follow a more independent European security policy and the worsening military situation in Ukraine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research investigates how the complex intertwining of multiple assessments influences the way in which scientific consensus and health policy are perceived. We identified an extreme case in France, with its divided political views on glyphosate, which enabled us to highlight unusual variations and develop a richer, more thorough understanding of cognitive biases and complex collective assessments related to health policy. Our sample comprised 51 articles from four major French online media outlets, 2944 user-generated comments (84,386 words), and 52,023 social audience metrics collected during the heated period following the glyphosate renewal decision made by the European Commission, from November 27, 2017, to December 04, 2017. Through a discourse analysis, we uncovered the media articles' discursive strategies. We also explored the embedded user-generated comments and analyzed collective assessments of glyphosate policy. Our primary contribution lies in developing an understanding of the mechanisms involved in collective assessments of health policy and research consensus. We explored the role played by emotional and moral assessments as antecedents to online polarization. We argue that the complex intertwining of rational, emotional and moral assessments influences how academic consensus is perceived. This research answers the call for more research on the health policy communication process and on the logic of controversy at the interface between politics and science. • Complex intertwining of rational, emotional and moral assessments influences the way academic consensus is perceived. • We analyze 2,944 user-generated comments, related to 51 media articles and their social audience (n=52,023). • We explore how individuals reason in online groups and how they assess health policy. • A reasoning paradox: we evaluate cognitive biases involved in the construction of distorted online reasoning. • Emotional and moral assessments are antecedents to polarization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]