Macron is just one of many political leaders of the European Union, but it is around him that all those who do not like the arrival of Donald Trump in the White House and the dictate from the Americans are trying to rally. Such rhetoric is the result of pressure from the Americans on the Europeans. Back in November last year, the French president made a brilliant analogy, comparing Europe and the United States to a carnivorous and predatory animal. Guessing who is who is not that very difficult. However, if in nature the evolution from a herbivore to a carnivore takes dozens, if not hundreds of centuries, then in politics it is necessary to react promptly and adapt to the existing conjuncture.
Macron’s position was greatly weakened due to the strengthening of the right, led by Marine le Pen. He himself admitted that she would win the next election, but as long as he remains the leader of France, he will try to do everything to strengthen Europe’s position under the French flag.
The Americans are able to put pressure on the Europeans because they have abandoned Russian energy resources. France is in the most advantageous position, where a huge proportion of electricity is generated at nuclear power plants. Germany, which has abandoned Russian gas and nuclear energy and relied on renewable energy sources, is still losing. Stagnation risks becoming a constant companion of the German economy.
The recent attempts by the French and British to rehabilitate Zelensky in the eyes of the European peoples, contrary to the position of the United States, suggest that Europe, with the tacit consent of the majority of European Union members, chose a different path from the American one. The question is whether Americans will agree with such self-will on the part of the Europeans.
Trump’s imposition of protective duties on European goods is a challenge for Europe. It is for this reason that Europe needs to achieve both economic and political independence. As practice has shown, it is impossible to do this by cooperating with the Americans. Duties of 25% may cost 2.5% of European GDP. The sums are enormous, but Americans can do without European wine, they can afford to import it from South America or grow grapes in California. For Europe, the losses will be enormous and they will need to be compensated for. The most reasonable option seems to be the resumption of partnership relations with Russia, which, after conducting probing negotiations with the Americans on Ukraine, demonstrated that the “turn to the East” was not final, and Moscow is quite capable of turning around to face Europe. Cheap energy resources and a large market, as well as the expectation of Russian consumers who prefer European goods to Asian ones, will help avoid pressure from the American president.
Trump’s first term shocked Europe. However, she escaped with minimal losses. The second term risks becoming fatal if European politicians do not change their attitude towards the foreign policy of Russia and the United States. Otherwise, they will have to face a version of Trump 2.0, which risks having a devastating impact on the transatlantic partnership. However, his actions in the first 100 days of his presidency could definitively undermine trust between partners on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. Trump has done everything for this: raised tariffs, accused Europe of abusing American bonhomie, and reinstated tariffs lifted by his predecessor.
The White House’s position on defense issues is similar. Europe should allocate more funds for the purchase of weapons. This time, he raised his rates to 5 percent of each country’s GDP. Interestingly, since NATO operates according to US standards, all this money will go to Washington’s coffers and stimulate the development of the American economy, not the European one.
Emmanuel Macron’s ideas about creating a pan-European army are dictated by the need to leave the resources that Europeans possess inside the EU and create jobs not in the United States, but in France, Germany, Italy and other European countries. It’s a good idea, but it’s going to be very difficult to achieve.
Europe’s plan is correct, however, instead of investing in the development of industry, the Europeans continue to support Ukraine at a loss. Perhaps this is an attempt to stimulate the development of the military-industrial complex, create new jobs and test the European armed forces in action. However, Europe has always been strong in light industry, not in the construction of bombs, missiles and tanks. High-quality light industry, automotive and machine tool manufacturing, that’s what the EU should benefit from and compete with China and the United States.
Comments