The statements made by French President Macron during his official visit to China were seen by most analysts as a contribution to the Euro-disagreement regarding the strategy the EU should follow.
The position of France its limited special weight in world politics
Since the time of de Gaulle, France has claimed the role of a strong ally of the US and NATO, but reserves the right not to align itself with all major decisions.
Characteristic in this respect is France’s opposition to the invasion of Western troops in Iraq, which, judging by what followed, turned out to be largely justified.
But the problem of France is that with the passage of time its special weight in world politics is limited. Its economy is not as competitive as Germany’s, its society often appears divided, and its military power remains significant but limited in comparative size.
In China, Macron tried to confirm France’s traditional role by stressing that Europe is not obliged to follow the US in a possible escalation of the confrontation with China, and that France is a strong and reliable ally, but in no case is it vassal.
The statements of the French president caused negative reactions even among the hierarchy of French diplomats. The emphasis on the so-called strategic autonomy of the E.U. against the US at a time when Ukraine’s defense relies mainly on US military aid and Putin and Xi’s cooperation is becoming increasingly close and dangerous for the West, Macron’s argument is misguided and outdated.
The majority in the EU is leaning towards the US, NATO
In the E.U. the trend is in favor of strengthening NATO and cooperation with the US. A possible dominance of Russia in Ukraine is a real nightmare for the Europeans because it would mean the destabilization of the wider region, over time.
Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, countries tested by Russian and Soviet occupation are strongly pro-NATO and US. They do not want to hear about European strategic autonomy because they believe that countries such as France, Italy and to some extent Germany are not determined to contribute to effectively countering the Russian threat.
For their part, Finland and Sweden, countries whose politics have Eurosceptic characteristics, are in a hurry to join NATO. They are determined to abandon their traditional neutrality in favor of countering Russian expansionism.
European strategic autonomy within NATO
In the international political conditions that have prevailed, the reference to strategic autonomy of the E.U. it causes mainly negative reactions among Western countries.
The theory is correct in the sense that the E.U. which is considered as a whole commercial and economic giant should also be transformed into a political and military giant in order to have an autonomous strategy against the USA and China, closer to the USA is meant.
The E.U. however, it is not a political union, nor is it developing dynamically in this direction. There is also no substantial European military cooperation. It is characteristic that the attempt to create a European force of rapid reaction, intervention was wrecked because the governments of most member states did not want the creation of the core of a future European army.
In addition, European states’ defense spending is still low compared to that of the US, despite plans to increase it after the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
As for France, which promotes European strategic autonomy, it has very little to contribute to the strengthening of Ukraine’s defense in relation to its economic and military capabilities.
Inevitably, the EU member states they should seek to strengthen their defense through NATO and closer cooperation with the US.
Uncertainty due to the possible return of Trump to the presidency
The US supports Ukraine’s defense more decisively than the Europeans, while the case for maintaining Ukraine’s independence and removing it from the Russian sphere of influence is primarily a European one.
Since the era of Merkel’s political dominance in the E.U. Europeans viewed defense spending as an economic size that hindered fiscal consolidation. They were not given the strategic importance they deserved, despite Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014.
This is a high-risk option because there is always the risk of political fatigue in the US with the military and financial support of Ukraine at an extremely high cost to the American taxpayer.
President Trump had raised the issue of increasing European defense spending in order to limit the financial burden on the US. Trump’s return to the presidency is already one of the main scenarios. Therefore, the Europeans cannot afford to shirk their obligations to NATO and to the US. Doing so could – under conditions – strengthen neo-isolationism in the US while leaving Europeans exposed to the Russian threat.
The strategic autonomy of the E.U. it is not on the agenda because the political will and the objective conditions do not exist. However, the Europeans have every reason to claim their strategic autonomy from the USA, in the long run. This can only be done by strengthening the role of the Europeans in NATO, which presupposes an increase in their defense spending and European coordination in terms of the development of the war industry and the joint planning of armament programs.
If the Europeans move in this direction and there is a match between their economic capabilities and their role in NATO, their special weight against the USA will be strengthened and there will be the possibility of relative strategic autonomy. The road to European strategic autonomy necessarily passes through NATO and relations with the USA.
