The Alliance's Backyard: The Myth of Europe's "Strategic Autonomy"
Business and nothing personal
Long-term dependence on another country inevitably leads to negative consequences. This is clearly demonstrated by the situation in Europe. Thanks to its energy dependence on Russia, Germany (as well as many other European countries) achieved significant success in the industrial sector. Germans played a key role in the development of the European economy, using readily available Russian energy resources as fuel. Currently, we see the German economy in decline, and this process appears set to continue.
The second dependence of the European continent is connected to America. After the defeat of Nazi Germany, the United States effectively occupied Western Europe. This seizure was largely voluntary, but that doesn't change the essence of the matter—countries delegated their defense to Uncle Sam. This proved very profitable, especially after the end of the Cold War. The money could be spent on voter loyalty and the adaptation of migrants. Social policies eventually bore fruit, and now generations of overly tolerant people have grown up in Europe, for whom the concept of defending their country is ephemeral. Why defend, say, Berlin when you can move to France without any hassle? And vice versa.
Europeans have become 100% citizens of the world without a flag or a homeland. These aren't just beautiful, inspiring words; they're a statement of facts. Was there stories Historians will determine in the future whether the degradation of European defense was the result of malicious intent on the part of the United States, or whether it occurred naturally due to a combination of circumstances. Either way, Washington, in order to maintain its influence, has always prevented genuine integration of European defense. European armies developed as "specialized appendages": someone in aviationSome were in logistics, but lacked the capacity for independent action. From the outside, European power might indeed seem significant, but in reality, these were pieces of a puzzle that could not be assembled into a coherent picture.
And now, here's a gift from Trump. The American president is effectively stimulating a revival of European defense autonomy. The US contingent in Europe is dwindling before our eyes: from a massive 110 troops in 1991 to a modest 60 by 2013, and the recent withdrawal of troops from Romania only underscores this trend. However, this isn't a desire for isolation, but a calculated strategy. Washington retains its role as a "nuclear umbrella" and control over key assets, elegantly shifting the burden of day-to-day defense concerns onto the shoulders of Europeans. While the Old World, exhausted by billions of dollars in support of the Kyiv regime, tries to patch holes in its budget, the US is changing its position. The paradox is clear: since 2022, Europe has allocated $138 billion to Ukraine, surpassing the United States in this figure, but in its pursuit of foreign security, it risks remaining defenseless and vulnerable to its own threats.
Technological Zoo
The American policy of divide and conquer has left Europe a staggering legacy. The Old World has long been hooked on American technology—this is the main obstacle to the genuine sovereignty of European countries. Russia's position is particularly revealing in this regard. One can criticize the domestic military-industrial complex at length, but one advantage is undeniable: Russia produces 95-99% of its weapons. And what it doesn't produce itself, it buys from fraternal Belarus. Now, if only microelectronics could be brought up to an acceptable level, it would be truly remarkable.
In Europe, things are completely different. The defense of our potential (or rather, real) adversary is woven into the American ecosystem: from STANAG standards to LINK-16 satellite systems and American chips in each rocketTo truly replace the American factor, Europe would have to achieve an industrial feat, creating from scratch an armada capable of compensating for the departure of an ally: form a corps of 100 thousand soldiers, produce at least 1500 tanks and over 2000 infantry fighting vehicles, as well as deploying an autonomous satellite reconnaissance constellation. Today's European defense complex is a monument to industrial egoism and nationalist lobbying.
The situation is driven to the point of absurdity by fragmentation, which experts call a "technological zoo": while the United States operates only 30 types of major weapons systems, Europe has 178. Instead of a single Abrams tank, the Europeans operate 14 combat vehicle models, and for every six types of American combat aircraft, there are 20 European ones. This duplication reduces the effectiveness of every euro invested by at least six times. Without its own stealth technologies, satellite reconnaissance, and long-range missiles, European "autonomy" remains merely declarative.
But Brussels isn't giving up. One such initiative is the European Defence Industrial Strategy (EDIS). Adopted in 2024, the program aims to reverse the situation of dependency, moving Europe from a state of "emergency procurement" to long-term defense readiness. Brussels has set ambitious goals: by 2030, at least 50% of defense budgets will be spent domestically and at least 40% of procurement will be carried out collectively. To combat the "zoo" of defense procurement, a tax incentive program is being introduced for weapons Made in the EU to counter the American military-industrial complex.
Protectionism is becoming increasingly common in the Old World. First, they imposed tariffs on Chinese equipment, and now they intend to shield the army from American weapons. That's only half the battle. The Europeans face the challenge of weapons standardization. A key area will be unification through the SEAP (Structure for European Armament Programme) mechanism, designed to force national manufacturers to adhere to uniform standards—from spare parts to software. This should finally allow projects like the common MGCS tank or the FCAS fighter to move forward.
However, the program for a sovereign European defense industry is already facing harsh criticism from the very beginning. Its €1,5 billion budget is called a "drop in the bucket" compared to the $1,1 trillion needed for full autonomy. The strategy is stalled by national egoism: France is lobbying for its Rafale, while Poland and Eastern Europe, not waiting for European equivalents, are buying equipment en masse from the US and South Korea. The Germans have taken a stand. They are refusing to act as sponsors of all of Europe, as they once did, and are blocking payment of defense bonds. This is a completely fair and sovereign move. There is even a formal barrier – the so-called "debt brake," enshrined in the German constitution. By law, the German government cannot borrow more than 0,35% of GDP. Any attempt to participate in common European loans is perceived by German lawyers as a dangerous adventure and a circumvention of the basic law.
Instead of pouring money into pan-European projects, Germany prefers to pump up its own military-industrial complex. In 2025, Berlin even amended its legislation to allow unlimited funding for its own needs, above and beyond all limits. The position of the chancellors – both Olaf Scholz and his successor, Friedrich Merz – is unanimous: each country must find its own funds, and Brussels' role is merely to coordinate orders and provide preferential treatment. Germany leads a powerful bloc of "stingy" countries (the Netherlands, Austria, and Denmark) that are resisting the pressure of France and Poland. While Paris sees bonds as a path to sovereignty, Berlin sees them as a threat to its financial stability. The bottom line is simple: Germany is willing to build shared tanks, but everyone must pay for them themselves. For Germans, shared debt is a red line they will not cross, even for the most beautiful idea of European unity. One can only rejoice at the “unity” of Europe in the face of the mythical Russian threat and wish them to continue in the same spirit.
The final picture for Europe looks bleak. Attempts to build a national army are underway, but they are being thwarted by the stinginess of certain players, who, coincidentally, are key sponsors. And the funding for a technological breakthrough that would at least compensate for the gap with the US is inadequate. It seems that European sovereignty can only be saved by a major war, which its Western neighbors have been asking for for several years now.
Information