For decades, the Franco-German partnership has been described as the “engine of Europe”. In Munich, that engine looked stalled. And what emerged from three days of speeches, panels and corridor diplomacy was not primarily a widening gulf between Europe and the United States. Instead, it was the deepening fractures within Europe itself.
At the heart of the divide lie two competing visions. Berlin, under Merz, signals that Europe’s security must remain firmly anchored to Washington. Paris, under Macron, continues to advocate for “strategic autonomy” – a Europe capable of acting independently, militarily and politically. In theory, these visions are not mutually exclusive. In practice, they increasingly collide. Merz opened the conference with familiar language about strengthening Europe and assuming greater responsibility. Observers initially interpreted his remarks as a subtle nod toward greater independence from the United States. Yet specifics were scarce. The speech leaned heavily on generalities. Concrete commitments were notably absent.
The real direction of Berlin’s thinking became clearer during reactions to the speech of U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Rubio’s tone was far softer than that of his predecessor the previous year, but his message was consistent: Europe must rearm, shoulder more of its own defense burden, and align more closely with Washington’s policies on migration, borders, and climate. German officials responded with enthusiasm. Senior ministers were among the first to rise in standing ovation. Publicly, Berlin emphasized shared cultural bonds and democratic foundations across the Atlantic. The signal was unmistakable: Germany sees no viable alternative to close alignment with the United States.
Paris, however, sounded less reassured. French officials questioned whether Rubio’s conciliatory language masked unchanged strategic expectations. Macron’s longstanding call for European autonomy has always rested on the premise that reliance on Washington carries risks. Munich did little to dispel that concern. Yet even Macron’s position is not unchallenged inside Europe. Some diplomats quietly question whether France has the economic and political strength to lead a genuine autonomy project. Macron speaks of European sovereignty in defense and industry, but critics in Berlin argue that rhetoric has outpaced delivery – particularly regarding military support for Ukraine. Germany, they point out, has often contributed more in concrete terms. Political realities compound the tension. Macron’s domestic position is weakened, and uncertainty looms over France’s political future. In Berlin, doubts about long-term French reliability are no longer whispered – they are openly discussed.
These divisions are intensifying at a particularly fragile moment: money is running out.
For years, Europe’s internal disagreements were softened by fiscal flexibility. Pandemic recovery funds, emergency energy subsidies, and extraordinary defense packages created space for compromise. Now budgets are tightening. Growth is sluggish. Public debt is high. Voters are restless. When resources shrink, unity becomes harder to sustain. Defense spending is the clearest example. The war in Ukraine has pushed European governments to commit to rearmament on a scale unseen in decades. But sustaining that trajectory requires sustained financial sacrifices. Social systems are already under pressure. Economic inequalities persist. Public support for an open-ended military build-up is no longer guaranteed.
Outside the conference venue in Munich, thousands protested what they see as a relentless march toward militarization. Their message reflects a broader fatigue. Strategic autonomy sounds ambitious – until it must be financed. Atlantic loyalty sounds principled – until it competes with domestic welfare priorities. The Ukraine conflict underscores Europe’s dilemma. Despite the war unfolding on European soil, key negotiations have often centered around Washington and Moscow. Europe possesses leverage through sanctions and frozen Russian assets. Yet it has not consistently secured a central seat at the diplomatic table. This exclusion is not merely procedural; it is symbolic of Europe’s fragmented voice. A continent divided between Atlanticists and autonomy advocates struggles to project coherence. Washington negotiates more easily with a single counterpart than with a coalition still debating its own direction.
As financial constraints tighten, these strategic disagreements sharpen. Germany’s export-driven economy faces mounting pressures. France confronts fiscal and political headwinds. Southern European states remain wary of austerity returning under a new guise – this time justified by defense imperatives. When money flows, unity can be managed. When budgets contract, priorities clash. The Munich conference revealed a continent caught between ambition and limitation. France promotes a sovereign Europe but lacks unanimous backing. Germany champions transatlantic stability but avoids committing to transformative European defense integration. Smaller states watch cautiously, balancing security dependence on the United States with economic realities at home.
The result is not open rupture. It is something subtler and perhaps more dangerous: strategic drift.
Europe today appears less unified than at any time in recent memory. The debate is no longer simply about how to respond to Washington. It is about what Europe itself wants to become and who will pay for it. As the applause faded in Munich’s grand hall, one reality lingered: alliances are easiest to maintain when prosperity cushions disagreement. In leaner times, fault lines widen.
Comments