When European observers say that Europe needs a leader to stand against U.S. or Russia, they are joking, of course. Europe’s main task is to adapt to these superpowers.
In the coming weeks, we will witness how European satellites of U.S. will be adapting their foreign policies to Washington’s new guidelines and sentiments. All this will come together with so much fuss, which has already totally replaced Europe’s politics with visits, meetings in various formats and lots of statements of ‘cosmic proportions and cosmic stupidity’.
What we should not expect from them is that Europeans will take streamlined efforts to make their foreign policy at least a bit independent. So, the rivalry among European chiefs about who will be the main Washington’s favourite under the new administration will be somewhat comical and will not cause Donald Trump to make significant corrections in his plans about the Old World.
It would be great, of course, if Europeans could gain as much independence as many are secretly dreaming about there. But so far, it remains an elusive dream for politicians and businesses in Europe: the only thing they can hope for is to gradually restore economic ties with Russia.
The bounds of any political actions of Europeans related to Russian interests are derived from their progress in their relations with U.S. But not at all from their own, comparatively independent motives. In other words, however passionate are the speeches delivered across Europe, the level their authors depend on Americans is so great, it lets them consider nobody else but Washington a guarantor of or a barrier to stabilising European security.
By contrast, Russians should realize that this ‘tail-wagging’, which will form the behaviour of European capitals, concerns purely the relations with U.S.: benefits for Russia only depend on where the dialogue between Moscow and Washington will take them further.
In the meantime, the competition among Europeans for being closer to U.S. is just gaining pace. The main rivals here are Germany, France and Great Britain. All others are either too poor or have already opted only for bi-lateral relations, like Poland, or make almost any American chiefs utterly allergic, like those representing Brussels’ democracy. All the more so, they irritate Republicans, the brightest of whom have flocked around Trump.
The Brits are in the most challenging situation, they are not part of the EU and show independence of other European U.S. satellites. This has increased their possibilities in the context of a harsh conflict with Russia but is decreasing them when it comes to a peace agreement.
The election has just taken place in Germany, a new government will be formed, and few believe the incumbent Chancellor Friedrich Merz is ready for a serious talk with Americans. All the more so, Germans themselves do not have a taste for coming forward and gambling when the rules of the game are not yet certain: they do have much to lose.
That leaves the French president Emmanuel Macron who has already made his move by being the first of the leaders of major European countries to visit the White House. The Polish president Duda does not count, as Warsaw’s general European ambitions remain insignificant. Poland is not a Eurozone member, which gives benefits to its economy, but sends it to the back seat of the EU’s political framework.
On his part, Macron perfectly fits the role of trying to lead Europe’s adaptation to the new American leadership. It is very likely that exactly for this reason he was received quite warmly, yet lazily, in Washington. First, he is at the helm of the only EU country, which is a member of the UN Security Council. Despite the challenges faced by this crucial global order institution, its official status is still credible. Moreover, considering that France’s nuclear weapon was developed for real, and it is maintaining them on its own. Though, it does not give Paris additional weight in world politics anymore. But, despite everything, France is indeed the main military power of the European Union.
Second, Macron is a perfect member of the current European elite with a solid experience in dealing with prominent circles across the West. He is a very skilful politicker, which is confirmed by the events of the previous year: he lost twice, at the EP election and the election to the National Assembly of France, but he could keep control over the government. It does not matter that the Cabinet’s work brings no changes to the country’s economic situation: no one really expects this in the middle of a systemic crisis. Governments come and go, but for so long already they have failed to improve things in the French economy and social sphere, which has been totally stuck in the last century and deeply entangled by commitments within the euro area.
For eight years already, Macron has been up to nothing else by intrigues and some unimportant fuss. This does not prevent him from being quite successful by the standards of modern Europe, incredibly energetic and continuously entertaining the media and the audience with new ambitious statements. And, as far as everyone understands that no one in U.S. is going to discuss essential issues with Europeans, Macron’s personality fits this role best. He has repeatedly proven his flexibility, independence of any ideals and political attitudes. He is ready to tell whatever nonsense and take back his own words the day after. We all remember how he loudly declared ‘the brain death of NATO’ early in his presidency. And the many contradictory statements we have heard from Macron in the recent three years!
Third, Macron is the best option to sign something like Europe’s capitulation as an outcome of the current war and political crisis around Ukraine. Few have any doubts now that there will be two winners, Russia and U.S., and two losers, that being Europe and the distressed Ukraine. The question is about the possible terms to document their defeat.
Currently, European initiatives and decisions are part of the game the Americans are trying to play with Russia. Their repeated remarks that Washington is not against deploying some ‘European peacebuilders’ in Ukraine’s territory fully fit Trump’s overall strategy to pass on all costs to Europe. And as bystanders from the EU might be part of the outcome trade-off, this will allow Europeans to present the defeat as an utmost achievement. Let’s make no mistake, European voters will be just happy being accustomed to most silly decisions their leaders take.
In the long run, we cannot rule out that Macron will become an EU delegate who suits both Moscow and Washington. When European observers write that Europe needs a leader to stand against U.S. or Russia, they are joking, of course. Europe’s main task is to adapt to these mighty superpowers, to accept its fate of any kind. And here Macron is the right option, as he is in his last term as the French leader, after which he will happily abandon the country for the sake of a good mission in business or, at least, in an international organisation.
In other words, Macron is a very good choice for modern Europe, exactly because no one could have imagined having such a politician at the helm at the time when the Old World still had some leverage in global affairs.