French defense autonomy sounds bold, but Europe needs unity.
Macron’s once-mocked warning now resonates, as Trump eras and Ukraine war expose Europe’s risky dependence on transatlantic security.
In a 2017 speech that sounded radical at the time, French President Emmanuel Macron warned that “we cannot blindly entrust what Europe represents to the other side of the Atlantic.” His call for European strategic autonomy was mocked by critics who saw NATO and U.S. security guarantees as permanent fixtures. Today, after two Trump presidencies, growing American inwardness, and three grinding years of war in Ukraine, Macron’s core concern looks strikingly prescient.
Yet acknowledging that Europe needs greater responsibility for its own security does not mean the French defense model offers a realistic blueprint for the continent. The idea of autonomy, as Paris often frames it, risks becoming a mirage — attractive from afar, but elusive and impractical up close.
France’s defense posture is built on a unique mix of historical, political, and strategic circumstances. It is the European Union’s only nuclear power after Brexit, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and a country with a long tradition of overseas military operations. French strategic culture prizes independence, centralized decision-making, and national control over military assets. This model works — imperfectly — for France. It does not easily scale to Europe as a whole.
Europe is not a single state but a collection of nations with vastly different threat perceptions. For countries in Eastern and Northern Europe, Russia is an immediate and existential danger. For Southern states, instability in North Africa and the Middle East looms larger. France’s preference for strategic ambiguity and diplomatic maneuvering with adversaries does not reassure frontline states that rely on clear deterrence and hard security guarantees.
There is also the issue of capacity. European defense spending has increased since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but fragmentation remains severe. Multiple weapons systems, incompatible logistics, and national industrial rivalries undermine efficiency. France’s push for “buy European” defense solutions often masks an effort to promote its own defense industry, breeding suspicion rather than unity among partners.
Most importantly, autonomy does not equal independence. Europe’s military strength is still deeply intertwined with the United States — from intelligence and surveillance to airlift, missile defense, and nuclear deterrence. Pretending Europe can quickly replace these capabilities risks strategic self-deception. Autonomy framed as distancing from Washington may sound bold, but it ignores decades of integration that cannot be undone without weakening Europe’s security in the short to medium term.
That does not mean Macron was wrong to issue his warning. Europe does need to grow up strategically, invest more seriously in defense, and reduce its vulnerability to political shifts in Washington. But this requires cooperation, realism, and trust — not the projection of one nation’s model onto an entire continent.
True European security will come not from mirages of autonomy, but from pragmatic burden-sharing, stronger NATO-European synergy, and a collective understanding of Europe’s diverse fears and priorities. Strategic responsibility, not strategic solitude, is the lesson Europe should take from today’s turbulent world.