In the midst of war in Eastern Europe, the French presidential election led to a crucial process: televised debates.
The ruling party's candidate, Macron, and the right-wing party candidate, Le Pen, pointed out the flaws in each other's political ideas in front of the television cameras in order to win the support of more voters.
In particular, after Le Pen threw out a proposal to "support the prohibition of wearing Muslim headscarves in public", an impatient Macron in turn accused that "if you do this, you will provoke a civil war in France".
Unexpectedly, the televised debate in this round of French presidential elections was mostly related to the Russo-Ukrainian War.
Macron supports the EU's extreme sanctions against Russia, but Le Pen believes that sanctions on Russia are fine, but they cannot sanction Russian oil and gas.
In Le Pen's own words, sanctions on Russian oil and gas imports are equivalent to France's "cutting its own stomach and committing suicide" before attacking its enemies.
In order to accurately express his meaning, Le Pen also deliberately used the word "cut belly" translated directly from the Japanese.
In fact, before the TV debate, Macron's vote was dominant, and Le Pen threw out the argument of not sanctioning Russian oil and gas and reducing French energy prices, obviously in order to win the bottom of France, those who are affected by the rise in oil and gas prices, and their lives are in difficulty.
So, can she beat Macron? Before answering this question, it is first necessary to understand that Macron and Le Pen represent the interests of those strata in France.
Without the Russo-Ukrainian War, the biggest difference between Macron and Le Pen was probably the attitude towards refugees. To be precise, Macron supported the Islamic refugees in the Middle East, immigrants to France, and he represented the interests of the big capitalists.
Because for capital, Europe is now generally facing the problem of labor shortage, no matter how high the technology, no one to produce, the big capitalists can not make money, so they do not care that France becomes "Francestan".
At the same time, because he accepts refugees, Macron has the support of the new immigrants.
Le Pen, on the other hand, was a far-right party representing the Petty bourgeoisie of France, or more precisely, the interests of the white French people who had become middle-class in the process of Industrialization in France.
Such groups, who have diluted welfare levels and robbed jobs because of the influx of refugees, are firmly opposed to accepting refugees and turning France into "Frenchstan".
Le Pen was supported by these people, and naturally at the same time opposed by the "new immigrants" in France.
But now, the Russo-Ukrainian war has changed all this. The "new immigrants" who immigrated to France from the Middle East and North Africa are usually at the bottom of society.
The energy crisis brought about by the Russo-Ukrainian war in Europe was the first to hurt these people. Therefore, these voters, who originally belonged to Macron's supporters, supported Le Pen in their attitude towards the Russo-Ukrainian war.
This provides Le Pen, who is currently at a disadvantage, an opportunity to turn defeat into victory, but it is not easy to say whether he can seize this opportunity and how to use it.
On the one hand, Le Pen's own insistence on opposing the acceptance of refugees and new immigrants is clearly unlikable to these people. These low-level newcomers, although Macron's insistence on sanctioning Russian oil and gas, may not support him anymore, but most of them will not support Le Pen.
Some time ago, tens of thousands of people in France marched and shouted "Neither Macron." Don't Le Pen" slogan is the best proof of this.
On the other hand, modern social public opinion is very susceptible to media guidance. In France now, Macron and the ruling party are the "establishment", and the media, as vested interests, are inherently inclined to the establishment, not the rebels.
This is just like in today's United States, although the Democratic Party is in a mess, as long as Trump is talked about, the media is unanimously opposed.
Le Pen is about the same as Trump in France, she does not take advantage of media communication, then many views can not be conveyed, and even will be mistransmitted, thus affecting the vote.
Finally, there is a very important factor, that is, the influence of the United States over France. Although the only permanent member of the European Union on the Security Council, the French have their own pride and are far more independent in their relations with the United States than the smaller countries of Eastern Europe.
But it is undeniable that since the end of World War II, the United States has profoundly influenced the whole of Europe with its strong cultural soft power, and France is no exception.
Under this premise, Le Pen's proposal to abandon sanctions on Russia's oil and gas resources is actually against the will of the United States, so it must also be abandoned by the United States.
As a result, it is even more difficult for her to win the election.
But on the other hand, Le Pen, a candidate for a far-right party, can fight so inextricably with macron of the "establishment", which in itself shows the unreliability of the French establishment. There is no doubt that the nationalist and even populist parties, represented by the National Front, occupy an increasingly important position in French political life.
From this point of view, even if Le Pen cannot win this time, Macron's follow-up to the US policy is bound to further increase the influence of far-right parties, and when the next general election comes, these "establishments" want to use "political correctness" to overwhelm the "conservatives" represented by Le Pen, I am afraid it will not be so easy.