One cannot assume the role of the state, said the French President when he announced the withdrawal from Mali.
Indeed it is, and it is a lesson learned from a number of failed military operations conducted in the past few years by the West in the name of democracy and human rights.
Despite all the differences, the result from Afghanistan to Mali always looks similar.
What is called “nation building”, the establishment of a modern national state, is difficult to secure with Western weapons, let alone enforce it.
terrorism and migration
In Mali, it wasn't just about that for the French.
As a former colonial power, they regard West Africa as a traditional sphere of influence;
There were also concerns about the spread of Islamist terrorism and migration to Europe.
A generation or two ago, a French president would have been fine with tackling these issues in conjunction with a local military government.
But Macron realized that it is difficult to work with putschists when they actually start to sabotage you.
The fact that they are now seeking salvation in Moscow will not do the country any good, but it is not enough to justify continuing European engagement.
The results are too small for that.
Germany is in Mali mainly because it wanted to support France, one should be honest in Berlin.
The fact that Macron is giving up not only poses operational challenges for the two Bundeswehr missions.
Should the EU really continue to train the Malian military if it remains in power with no prospect of elections?
What can the UN peacekeeping force do if the French stop fighting terrorism in the country?
The federal government felt it was unnecessary to send a cabinet member to Paris as Macron coordinated the withdrawal with allies.
But she cannot avoid good answers to these questions.