topics
From the perspective of the processes that have taken place over the past two decades, the European Union has no element of strategic autonomy. Strategic autonomy exists today only on paper, but in practice it does not exist. French President Emmanuel Macron talks a lot about it, but does nothing about it. Unfortunately, at the moment we are very far from that. But, as they say, even the longest journeys begin with one first step. The first steps in this matter involve the actualization of the issue of Europe's strategic autonomy, its clear definition in academic circles, and the concretization of this issue by political circles in Europe.
EU High Representative Josep Borrell warned that “Europe risks losing its actuality,” so strategic autonomy, he said, is “a matter of survival.” Also, French President Emmanuel Macron said that “Europe can be the third pole in regard to the USA and China” and that “strategic autonomy is the key to not becoming vassals.” These statements were meant to imply that “the EU will act in the interests of Europe, not in the interests of the United States.” However, it turned out that the attempt to regulate this way the EU’s relations with the USA becomes an insurmountable obstacle to further development of the concept and, in fact, to actually achieving the strategic autonomy of the European Union and the European continent as a whole.
The term “strategic autonomy” was first mentioned in the French White Paper on Defense in 1994 and referred to the creation of conditions to reduce dependence on NATO and the concept of nuclear deterrence. Since 2013, the EU has talked about strategic autonomy as part of strengthening the European security industry. Although not specifically emphasized, “strategic autonomy” is becoming one of the objectives of the European Union’s Global Strategy for Foreign and Security Policy since 2016. Thus, the use of the term from the defense industry has spread to foreign policy as well. Today The European Council formulates strategic autonomy as “the ability to act both independently when and where necessary and with partners where possible.”
The European Union is increasingly focusing on developing autonomy concepts in some areas, including access to critical raw materials.
The EU Common Foreign and Security Policy was created to coordinate the strategic goals of the member states and to develop a unified approach to solving strategic tasks, but the NATO bloc remained the key factor of the continent’s security. Regulating relations between the EU and NATO, i.e. the leading European states that sought more room for maneuver and independent action in international relations, and the USA has become particularly complicated in the years since the publication of the EU Global Strategy. The difficulties and confusion are heightened by the fact that the EU leadership is trying to explain that “the function of implementing strategic autonomy is actually to strengthen the transatlantic partnership and strengthen the link between Brussels and Washington.” It is noteworthy that due to the unanswered question of how to formulate a common foreign and security policy, the EU is increasingly focused on developing concepts of autonomy in other areas, such as access to essential raw materials. Therefore, despite the statements of Borel and Macron, the EU says little and works even less to concretize the foreign policy dimension of its strategic autonomy.
As a reminder, from a theoretical standpoint, strategic autonomy includes three main elements: strategic security, strategic economy, and strategic culture. What does the EU have of all this today? Without the USA and without NATO, Europe’s strategic security simply does not exist. Whether we are talking about nuclear deterrence or the extended concept of deterrence, Europe is incapable of defending itself against any strategic threat. Not only are there no opportunities for this, but there are no corresponding doctrines. The doctrines of both the EU and most European countries are linked to NATO, and NATO is an asymmetric military alliance because the US role in the bloc is dominant.
Also, when it comes to strategic economic autonomy, Europe faces some very inconvenient truths. First, the share of important European actors in the global market is rapidly declining. Europe is no longer competitive.
A neoliberal discourse based on gender equality is persistently imposed as the strategic culture of the European Union, something that the majority of citizens in European countries simply do not accept.
Second, the ongoing inflation is neither the result of the pandemic, nor of the conflict in Ukraine: it is the result of a systemic mistake made in trying to emphasize the financial economy as a generator of economic growth. Money is constantly being printed, an approach simply adopted into the EU from the policies of the American Federal Reserve, and countless loans are being issued, the expediency of which is highly questionable.
Thirdly, since the escalation of the Ukrainian crisis, there has been a significant outflow of investors from Europe – both European and international. Investors are moving their activity to other parts of the world where energy is cheaper, there is more certainty and no fear of radical change. In many academic articles, Europe is still seen as an economic giant, which may yet be true from a statistical point of view. But if you look at it from the standpoint of the real economy and the processes currently taking place in the EU, this giant is already on its knees. In addition, for well-known reasons, the European economy severely lacks stable access to cheap energy and essential raw materials necessary for the development of new technologies.
The third problem is perhaps the most dangerous in the long run, and it concerns the explanation of the functions of strategic autonomy by the EU institutions. A common foreign and security policy based on strategic autonomy is a necessity because “the spread of fear politics is a challenge to European values and the European way of life.”
But what are these European values about? What is the European way of life? There is no consensus or agreement in the EU on this. In other words, a neoliberal discourse based on gender equality is persistently imposed as the strategic culture of the European Union, which most European citizens simply do not accept. Elements of strategic culture are factors of social homogenization. The uniqueness and distinction of public policy is reflected not only in its potential military, economic, and political power, geographic location or resources, but also in the shared and constitutive definitions of a collective.
The starting point of the concept of strategic culture is, from the outset, the view that each country, stimulated by the influence of its own cultural identity, possesses a unique way of analyzing, interpreting, and responding to international reality.
The aggressive advocacy of LGBT rights and freedoms, as well as the justification of common European values through them, has led to the division of Europe and the polarization of European societies. The reality of European countries today is that they have supranational institutions in Brussels whose legitimacy is being challenged and who are imposing on the people of Europe some concepts for a strategic culture that most citizens are unwilling to accept. It must be said bluntly that The European Union is shamelessly destroying the foundations of European culture by abandoning the Christian tradition. Suffice it to watch the opening ceremony of the Paris Olympics. France has really given the world a lot, French culture has been a model that many other cultures have looked up to. But was any of this great French culture represented at the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games? Absolutely not! Shocked viewers from all over the world were presented with gender equality, an anti-Christian vision of the world, a degenerate phase of cultural development that glorifies death instead of life.
Shock: these supranational institutions from Brussels are implementing models that glorify death over life.
It’s horrible, but these supranational institutions from Brussels are implementing models that glorify death over life. What strategic autonomy does this give us? In relation to what can this strategic autonomy be implemented? In terms of life or death?
Speaking of processes that have taken place over the last two decades, the European Union does not possess a single element of strategic autonomy. Strategic autonomy, which exists today only on paper, but does not exist in practice. French President Emmanuel Macron talks a lot about it, but does nothing. As for the abovementioned Borel, he is ingloriously ending his mandate. His place is taken by Kaja Kallas. And this only means that such a desired “strategic autonomy” will not be concretized again by the highest political circles of the European Union. And this will not happen in practice until free and sovereign states are re-established in Europe.
Alas, we are very far from that at the moment. But, as they say, even the furthest hikes begin with a few first steps. The first steps in this issue are related to the actualization of the topic of Europe’s strategic autonomy, its clear definition in academic circles, and the concretization of this issue by political circles in Europe.
