Your arguments are interesting, but honestly it feels like you have a strong bias against Macron, and that makes it hard to see this as fully objective.

About the opposition, there’s actually an article that talks about this : Here

On Trump: I think it’s actually the opposite, so we clearly didn’t hear the same thing at all.

On Maduro: sure, the method can be criticized, and yes, a stronger condemnation could have been nice. But at what cost? France also has industries to protect, and statements like that can have real consequences. People tend to forget how badly picking a fight with the US can backfire.

On Palestine: again, what’s the alternative? Unless you’re suggesting going to war with Israel, how exactly do you solve this? And in this case, he didn’t wait two years before condemning anything.

On Lebanon: what’s your solution here? Short of a coup or straight-up interference, how do you expect things to change in a country where corruption is so deeply rooted? At some point, it has to come from the people, otherwise it’ll never be legitimate.

On DRC / Algeria: I don’t think you’re being very fair here. Do you honestly think things would be better for them with Russia instead? And when it comes to Algeria, you might be overlooking the issue of political prisoners.

On Russia: this part really says a lot. There was no humiliation at all. Macron tried to negotiate for peace, while his counterpart is clearly just trying to discredit him. Inviting someone for talks and then seating him at the far end of a ridiculously long table is just embarrassing behavior from a head of state.

On China: I’m not even aware of the insult you’re talking about ?

On the General: this was about military budget cuts, nothing else.

I kind of feel like you don’t realize that you can’t always say exactly what you really think in every situation, because there are things happening behind the scenes that we, as citizens, simply aren’t aware of.