Citizens' Resolution on Ukraine : when the people demand to have their voices heard and to respect the Constitution

Citizens' resolution on the war in Ukraine: the military's call for an army at the service of the Nation and not of one man

On April 17, 2025, a citizens' resolution was served by a bailiff on the presidents of the Senate Gérard Larcher and of the National Assembly Yael Braun-Pivet, marking a new stage in the quest for transparency on France's military and financial commitment in Ukraine. Initiated by former high-ranking military personnel and an honorary prefect, this citizen initiative requires an immediate parliamentary debate to respond to the apparent violations of articles 35 and 53 of the Constitution. Since 2022, persistent rumours have evoked the presence of French troops in Ukraine, without official confirmation or public debate. Similarly, the Franco-Ukrainian security agreements of February 2024, committing €3 billion for 2024, have not been ratified by Parliament, despite legal obligations.

As early as February 2024, Senator Alain Houpert had referred the matter to the Council of State to demand parliamentary ratification of the Franco-Ukrainian agreement, based on Article 53. Other appeals followed, including a referral to the United Nations Human Rights Council, denouncing the absence of a parliamentary vote and the manifest violation of fundamental rights, and a complaint to the Court of Justice of the Republic against Attal, Lecornu and Séjourné for illegal delivery of military equipment to Ukraine, failing to ratify the security agreements with the latter.

The France-Soir/BonSens.org polls reveal a massive demand for a referendum, with citizens wanting to regain control of decisions with serious consequences. However, the government remains deaf: Emmanuel Macron is talking about a possible deployment of troops in May 2025, as well as the possible pooling of nuclear weapons, while François Bayrou rejects the idea of consulting the French on the additional efforts that could be asked of them.

This article explores the resolution (1), its democratic roots, and the reactions to it.

What is a citizens' resolution? A little-known democratic tool

In 2007, Nicolas Sarkozy set up the Balladur Committee, to modernize the institutions of the Fifth Republic and respond in particular to the weakening of Parliament in the face of the executive. Chaired by Édouard Balladur, with 13 members including Jack Lang and Pierre Mazeaud, this committee proposed the creation of an article 34-1 of the Constitution, allowing the assemblies to vote on resolutions on specific issues. Since 2008, 756 resolutions have been tabled, 131 considered, 96 adopted, including those of 2022 (No. 4760) on the Uyghur genocide, 2019 (No. 2425) on the Armenian genocide, and 2016 (No. 3648) calling for the lifting of sanctions against Russia related to Ukraine.

The vote of the deputies had been well noted by François Fillon: “against the advice of the government, the resolution on the lifting of sanctions against Russia was voted by the National Assembly” posted François Fillon on April 28, 2016. And this vote was widely commented on and reported in the media:

If normally only deputies or senators can table draft resolutions on the basis of article 34-1, considering the urgency of the situation and the need to act, 68 soldiers of all ranks and ranks have decided to notify the presidents of the two assemblies by means of a bailiff of a draft citizens ' resolutionto ask for a parliamentary debate on French commitment in Ukraine and respect for popular sovereignty, hoping that parliamentarians of all stripes will take up this citizens' initiative.

This citizens' resolution is a spontaneous initiative, led by citizens or collectives, aimed at challenging the institutions on a matter of public interest. Unlike a bill or a decree, it does not have binding legal force. However, it plays a key role in the arsenal of participatory democracy tools, alongside petitions, open letters or demonstrations. Its power lies in its ability to mobilise public opinion, to put pressure on elected representatives and to reveal the flaws in the democratic system.

In France, where the citizens' initiative referendum (RIC) remains a distant horizon, citizens' resolutions partially fill this void. They allow citizens to bypass an executive perceived as omnipotent, by addressing the nation's representatives directly. The resolution of 17 April 2025, tabled by a bailiff to underline its seriousness, is part of this logic: faced with the opacity of military and financial decisions, it demands that Parliament resume its role of control.

Historically, similar initiatives have made an impression, such as the citizens' grievance books of 2018-2019 during the Yellow Vest crisis. While they have not always led to concrete reforms, they have sometimes influenced the public debate by highlighting citizens' expectations. In this case, the presence of military figures among the signatories gives the initiative a rare authority, likely to attract attention beyond activist circles. It is also in line with the continuity of action such as that of Senator Alain Houpert, who had referred the matter to the Council of State in February 2024 for similar reasons.

The citizens' resolution: the army at the service of citizens, not of the rulers

The resolution tabled on April 17, 2025 articulates four specific demands:

• Publish in the Official Journal all information on the presence of French troops in Ukraine since 2022, as required by Article 35 of the Constitution.
• Organise a debate followed by a parliamentary vote on the continuation of this intervention, in accordance with Rule 35.
• Ratify the Franco-Ukrainian security agreements of 16 February 2024, committing €3 billion for 2024 and multi-year military support, in compliance with Article 53.
• Put this resolution on the agenda within 15 days, to ensure effective democratic oversight.

The army, guarantor of the nation

At the heart of the resolution is a fundamental principle: “The army of the Republic is at the service of the Nation” (Article L 4111-1 of the Defence Code). The signatories recall that the army does not belong to the rulers, but to the citizens, via their elected representatives. Military intervention without a parliamentary mandate, or arms deliveries without public debate, break this pact. As Article 16 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 points out, " any society in which the guarantee of rights is not assured, nor the separation of powers determined, has no constitution “.

In the absence of democratic control, the executive risks diverting the army from its original mission, to the benefit of particular or international interests.

Serious constitutional violations

The resolution draws up a precise indictment, reinforced by previous legal appeals:

• Article 35: since 2022, no clear communication has been made to Parliament on a possible presence of French troops in Ukraine, despite the obligation to inform within three days and to submit any extension to a vote after four months.
   
• Article 53: Franco-Ukrainian agreements have not been ratified by Parliament, unlike less costly treaties (e.g. agreement with Papua New Guinea, ratified in February 2024). This omission, already denounced by Senator Alain Houpert in his referral to the Council of State, calls into question their legality.
   
• Criminal risks (Article 55): the lack of ratification makes the deliveries of arms to Ukraine, from French stocks, potentially contrary to Article 411-3 of the Criminal Code, which punishes the delivery of defence equipment to a foreign power. This problem has led General Paul Pellizzari to file a complaint against Gabriel Attal, Sébastien Lecornu and Stéphane Séjourné for having delivered military equipment without authorization.

Legitimacy rooted in society

The resolution draws its strength from its signatories: army generals (Bertrand de Lapresle, Jean-Marie Faugère), colonels, officers of the French Navy, an honorary prefect (Pierre Breuil), and citizens from various backgrounds.

This diversity, combined with the authority of the military, gives the approach a symbolic and political significance, transcending traditional divisions.

The constitutional articles at stake

Article 35: Obliges the government to inform Parliament within three days of a military intervention abroad, with a vote required for any extension beyond four months.

Article 53: Requires parliamentary ratification of treaties with significant financial implications for public finances.

Article 55: Confers on duly ratified treaties an authority superior to laws, subject to their application by the other party.

A thirst for democracy - the rise of demand for a referendum not heard

The France-Soir/BonSens.org polls draw a clear conclusion: a majority of French people want a referendum and above all question the military and financial commitment in Ukraine. This aspiration for direct democracy is part of a context of growing mistrust of institutions. The public debt, which exceeds €3,200 billion, and the allocation of €3 billion to Ukraine for 2024 are considered a diversion from national priorities. Citizens, faced with internal challenges (health, education, purchasing power), are wondering:

Why commit massive resources to a distant conflict without their consent ?

President Macron's statements have only fuelled this unease. Since the beginning of 2025, he has spoken of a possible deployment of French troops in Ukraine as early as May 2025, as well as a pooling of nuclear weapons with European partners. These announcements, made without prior debate, have revived fears of a spiral of war, especially in the face of a Russia with which France is not officially at war.

This sense of exclusion is exacerbated by the contrast with other democracies. In Germany, the Bundestag regularly debates military engagements abroad. In the United Kingdom, Parliament has a key role in approving interventions. In France, the centralization of executive power marginalizes parliament and citizens, making initiatives like this resolution all the more crucial.

This is not the first time that this opacity has been denounced: as early as February 2024, an appeal to the United Nations Human Rights Council had pointed to the absence of a parliamentary vote on the Franco-Ukrainian agreement, a move that echoes the current resolution.

Upon reading the resolution, a reader declares:

It's so clear that I don't understand how it could have come to this point without anyone finding fault with it

Political reactions, an executive disconnected from citizens' expectations

This resolution reveals the yawning gap between the government and the citizens. François Bayrou, in an interview, said that “we must not consult the French” on the additional effort for the French in relation to the war in Ukraine. This posture, perceived as a contempt for popular sovereignty, crystallizes the criticisms made in the resolution. By rejecting the consultation, Bayrou seems to be endorsing a unilateral management of national affairs, in contradiction with the democratic principles he is supposed to defend.

To date, the presidents of the Senate and the National Assembly have not reacted publicly to the resolution, a silence that feeds the feeling of a political class that is closed in on itself. This silence contrasts with the urgency of the citizens' demands, which call for a debate within 15 days. This is not the first time that the executive has been accused of circumventing the institutions: as early as March 2024, “the blatant misuse of procedure” in the signing of the Franco-Ukrainian agreement was raised in an analysis by France-Soir.

However, the political context is conducive to a recuperation by certain actors. Opposition parties, such as the National Rally or La France Insoumise, could seize the opportunity to criticize the executive and demand a debate. Their relative silence, for the moment, however, leaves a doubt about their strategy. Previous legal challenges, such as that of Senator Houpert or the complaint of General Pellizzari, show that political and military voices have already been raised, but without tangible effect to date.

International context

On an international scale, the French approach stands out for its exceptional nature. In democracies such as Germany or Canada, military commitments are systematically debated in Parliament, offering a transparency that is the envy of the French. This comparison highlights the French anomaly: a presidency that concentrates strategic decisions, relegating Parliament to a secondary role.

The citizens' resolution, in this sense, is an attempt to realign France with more robust democratic standards.

Can a resolution change the situation?

The citizens' resolution of April 17, 2025 is much more than just a document: it is an act of democratic resistance, a reminder that the army serves the citizens and not the rulers. By denouncing the constitutional violations and the opacity surrounding the engagement in Ukraine, it exposes the flaws of a system where the executive exceeds its prerogatives. The France-Soir/BonSens.org polls and the reactions on X, amplified by actors such as Place d'Armes, testify to a growing popular support for a referendum, in direct opposition to the positions of Macron and Bayrou.

Can a citizens' resolution change things? Historically, this type of initiative has rarely led to immediate reforms. The 2018-2019 grievance books, for example, fed the debate without transforming the institutions. Similarly, previous legal remedies – Alain Houpert's referral, that of  the United Nations Human Rights Council, or General Pellizzari's complaint – have not yet led to concrete changes. However, the current context – distrust of the executive, geopolitical tensions, social polarisation – could give this resolution an unprecedented impetus. Its strength lies in its ability to federate various voices (military, civilian, patriotic) and to ask a fundamental question: who decides for the nation? If it succeeds in mobilizing beyond activist circles, via X or demonstrations, it could force institutions to react.

Who could seize it? Several players are in the running:

• Parliament: the presidents of the assemblies, under pressure, could put the resolution on the agenda, although their current silence suggests a reluctance.
• Opposition parties: the sovereignist parties, the National Rally, La France Insoumise or even dissidents from the majority could see it as a lever to criticize the executive.
• Civil society : Place d'Armes, but also other associations or citizen collectives, could intensify the mobilization, by organizing petitions or rallies.
• Citizens: amplification on X, coupled with coverage by alternative media, could turn the resolution into a symbol of democratic resistance.
• International bodies: the referral to the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2024 shows that international remedies can keep up the pressure.

An echo that is likely to grow in the media

Apart from France-Soir and Place d'Armes, media coverage of the resolution seems, for the moment, confidential. The mainstream media, often aligned with the priorities of the executive, will hesitate to relay an initiative critical of the government.

However, this marginalization could well have the opposite effect with relays on social networks.

In the next 15 days, will a debate take place? Is a referendum possible? These questions remain open, but one thing is certain: the resolution has lit a spark. It is up to the citizens to turn it into an inferno. Will the voice of the French people finally be heard?

Follow the debate, share your ideas on X, and make your voice heard for a vibrant democracy.

(1) Details of the citizens' resolution

Citizens' resolution

on military and financial commitment

of France in Ukraine

served by bailiff

to the presidents of the two assemblies

April 17, 2025

Article L 4111-1 of the Defence Code provides that: “The army of the Republic is at the service of the Nation. Its mission is to prepare and ensure by force of arms the defense of the homeland and the higher interests of the Nation.”

Since the beginning of 2022, persistent information, although not officially confirmed, has evoked the presence of French troops in Ukraine. If true, these facts would raise a serious question of compliance with Article 35 of the Constitution, which requires the Government to inform Parliament within three days of a military intervention abroad and to submit any extension beyond four months to a vote.

To date, however, no clear communication has been made to the assemblies, leaving citizens in the dark and deprived of their right to democratic control over the use of their army.

In addition, the Franco-Ukrainian security agreements signed on 16 February 2024, providing for military and financial support of €3 billion for 2024 and a multi-year military commitment, should have been ratified by Parliament in accordance with Article 53 of the Constitution, which requires parliamentary ratification of international treaties with significant financial implications for public finances.

For example, on 7 February 2024, the defence cooperation agreement between France and Papua New Guinea, which is much less demanding for public finances than the one concluded with Ukraine, was ratified by Parliament pursuant to Article 531.

However, to date, Parliament has not intervened to ratify the Franco-Ukrainian security agreements, which calls into question their legality and enforceability, both to the Nation and to French citizens, who are nevertheless called upon to contribute financially to military support for Ukraine.

In addition, since Article 55 of the Constitution provides that: “Treaties or agreements duly ratified or approved shall, as soon as they are published, have a higher authority than that of laws, subject, for each agreement or treaty, to its application by the other party”, the lack of regular ratification by Parliament raises the question of the legality of the deliveries of weapons from the stocks of the French army to Ukraine for use against the Federation of Arms Russia with which our country is not at war.

Indeed, Article 411-3 of the Penal Code provides: “The fact of delivering to a foreign power, to a foreign company or organization or to a foreign-controlled organization or to their agents materials, constructions, equipment, installations, apparatus assigned to national defense is punishable by thirty years of criminal detention and a fine of 450,000 euros”.

Finally, the recent statements by the President of the Republic, referring to a possible deployment of French troops in May 2025 as well as the pooling of the use of nuclear weapons, require a prior parliamentary debate to guarantee the legitimacy of such choices in the name of the Nation. This is the sine qua non condition for the legality of the Army's intervention. An army acting without a clear mandate from Parliament would no longer be at the service of the Nation, but of an isolated executive power, in contradiction with the spirit of our Constitution and Article 16 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789, which enshrines the separation of powers as a guarantor of rights: “Any society in which the guarantee of rights is not assured, nor the determined separation of powers, has no constitution.”

This is why we, citizens and former military personnel, believe that Parliament must be consulted on the continuation of the French military intervention and/or its engagement in Ukraine in accordance with Article 35 of the Constitution and that it must also be called upon to ratify the Franco-Ukrainian security agreements of 16 February 2024, in accordance with Article 53.

Proposed resolution:

We, citizens and former military personnel, call on the deputies and senators:

1. To have all information on the presence of French troops in Ukraine published in the Official Journal since 2022, as required by Article 35;
    
2. To organise a debate followed by a vote on the continuation of this intervention, pursuant to Article 35;
    
3. To decide on the ratification of the Franco-Ukrainian security agreements of 16 February 2024, in accordance with Article 53;
    
4. To place this resolution on the agenda within 15 days of its submission, in order to ensure the full exercise of parliamentary oversight

To date more than 5 000 signatures were obtained.

The first signatories were:

Army Generals

Bertrand de LAPRESLE, General of the Army (2S), Army

Jean-Marie FAUGERE, Army General (2S), Army

Lieutenant Generals

Maurice LE PAGE, Lieutenant General (2S), Army

Major Generals

Philippe CHATENOUD, Major General (2S) Army

Philippe GALLINEAU, Major General, Army

Brigadier Generals

Dominique DELAWARDE, Brigadier General (2S), Army

Alexandre LALANNE-BERDOUTICQ, Brigadier General (2S), Army

Marc JEANNEAU, General (2S), Army

Paul PELLIZZARI, Brigadier General (2S), Army

Marc PAITIER, Brigadier General (2S), Army

Antoine MARTINEZ, Air Brigadier General (2S), French Air and Space Force

Claude GAUCHERAND, Rear-Admiral (2S), French Navy,

Hubert de GEVIGNEY, Rear-Admiral (2S), French Navy,

Jean-Marie PARAHY, General (2S), Artillery,

Michel DE CET, General(2S), Gendarmerie,

Laurent AUBIGNY, Air Brigadier General (2S), French Air and Space Force,

Jean-François BOIRAUD, Brigadier General (2S), Artillery,

DANIELSCHAEFFER, Brigadier General (2S), Special Cadre,

Michel Georges CHOUX, Brigadier General (2s), Army,

Colonels

Yves BRÉART de BOISANGER , Colonel (ret), Army TDM/Trn

Alain CORVEZ, Colonel (ret) INF, Army

Paul BUSQUET de CAUMONT, Colonel

Bernard DUFOUR, Colonel (ret) TDM, Inf Army

Daniel BADIN, Colonel (ret) ART, Army

Jacques PELLABEUF, Colonel (ret) INF, Army

Hubert de GOËSBRIAND, Colonel (ret), Army, ABC

Éric GAUTIER, Colonel (ret), Army

Didier FOURCADE, Colonel (ret), Army, ABC

Pierre BRIÈRE, Colonel (ret), INF Army

Pascal BEGUE, Commissioner Colonel (ret), Army

Jacques de FOUCAULT, Colonel (ret) INF, Army

Philippe RIDEAU, Colonel ER Army

Jacques HOGARD, Colonel (ret) INF-LE, Army

Frédéric PINCE, Colonel (ret) TDM, Army

François RICHARD Col (ER) – Army

Erwan CHARLES, Colonel (ret), Army, ABC

Frédéric SENE, Colonel (M), French Air and Space Force

Régis CHAMAGNE, Colonel, Air and Space Force,

Philippe de MASSON d'AUTUME, Captain (H), French Navy

Christophe ASSEMAT, Senior Officer, Army

Olivier FROT, Commissioner Colonel (ret), Army

Denis KREMER, Chief Medical Officer, Armed Forces Health Service

Bruno WEIBEL, Chief Medical Officer, Armed Forces Health Service

Jean-Pierre RAYNAUD, Chief Medical Officer, Armed Forces Health Service

Marc HUMBERT, Special Cadre, French Army

Lieutenant-Colonels

Vincent TUCCI, Lieutenant-Colonel (ret) ABC-LE, Army

Alain de CHANTERAC, Lieutenant-Colonel (ret) TDM, Army

Bernard DUFOUR, Colonel (ret) INF, Army

Pierre RINGLER, Lieutenant-Colonel (ret) ART de Montagne, Army

Gérald LACOSTE, Lieutenant-Colonel (er)INF, Army, Municipal Councillor of Antibes

Benoit de RAMBURES, Lieutenant-Colonel (ret) TDM, Army

Louis ACACIO ROIG, Lieutenant-Colonel (ret) INF, Army

Bertrand de SAINT ANDRE, Lieutenant-Colonel (ret), Army

Franck HIRIGOYEN, Lieutenant-Colonel, Army

Thierry LEDUCQ, Lieutenant-Colonel (ret), GEN, Army,

Rémi BEVILLARD, Lieutenant-Colonel (ret) INF-LE

Laurent CAZAUMAYOU, Lieutenant-Colonel, Army,

Franck PUGET, Lieutenant-Colonel (ret) ABC, Army

Pierre LAMY, Lieutenant-Colonel (ret) TDM, Army

Denis CARTON, Lieutenant-Colonel (ret) ART, Army

Jean-Luc CHAZOTTES, Commander (R), French Navy

Frédéric TENAIRI, Lieutenant-Colonel (ret), National Gendarmerie

Commanders

Gilbert SANDMAYER, Battalion Chief (ret) INF TDM, Army

Fabrice SAINT-POL, Lieutenant-Commander H

Captains

Xavier MOREAU, Captain (ret) INF, Army

Antonius STREICHENBERGER, Captain, Army

Lieutenants

Jean-Paul PAGES, Ensign 1st Class (R), French Navy

Majors

Dominique PERRIN, Major (m), Army GSEM

Roger PETRY, Major (ret) INF, Army

Sergeant major

Marc-André ANGLES, Chief Warrant Officer (ret), Army

Antoine NIETO, Chief Warrant Officer (ret) TDM, Army

Claude ZIELINSKI, Chief Warrant Officer, Army

Jacques KERIBIN, Chief Warrant Officer (ret), DRSD Inspector, Air Force

Staff Sergeants

Alain PIALAT, Chief Marshal of the National Gendarmerie

CIVILIANS

Pierre BREUIL, Honorary Prefect

Gilles de FONT-RÉAULX, Saint-Cyr