After declaring NATO "brain-dead" has President Macron brought Europe any closer to strategic autonomy ?

The French leader’s comments were not meant to be taken as an "either or" choice. France is quite clear-eyed about the long-term effort required to address European capabilities shortfalls and about the value of U.S. support, as expressed last March in Washington by French defense minister Florence Parly. To take a rather French aphorism, it needn’t be "fromage OU dessert, mais fromage ET dessert". Macron’s actual words in the interview were that he thought "attitudes [were] changing and that today European defense is complementary to NATO", adding that "these days, if you don’t have military credibility, in a world where authoritarian powers are on the rise again, you don’t get to sit at the table".

As Patrick Chevallereau highlighted, "France is and will stay committed to NATO as one of its major players. Its armed forces are deployed from the Barents Sea to the Baltic States and the Black Sea, and directly contribute to the credibility of the Alliance at a level matched by only a few of its partners. These are verifiable facts, not rhetoric." Unlike most of its NATO partners, France maintains a full set of military capabilities, including independent nuclear forces, and deploys thousands of troops and assets in areas of conflict in Europe’s southern and south-eastern flanks to address another key part of French – and wider European – security interests. The price paid by France was again highlighted on 2^nd December when the country paid homage to 13 soldiers killed while fighting Islamic State-affiliated extremists in Mali.

If the French President’s case as to the strategic challenges facing Europe is hard to fault, do his criticisms of NATO and the way he went about it help midwife a more militarily capable and sovereign Europe? This is much more debatable.

The immediate reactions coming out of European capitals ranged from dismay to shock to anger. Macron’s interview comments came out of the blue, taking his European partners by surprise. No prior consultation, no warning, no preparatory explanation. As a result, responses have been overwhelmingly negative. In an unusually strong rebuke, chancellor Merkel said that NATO was the "cornerstone of security" for Germany, while Germany’s defense minister stated that "NATO remains the anchor of security in Europe. We want complementarity, not competition."

The apparent disregard for the security concerns of countries living in the shadow of Russian military power is what creates a real barrier with Macron’s European partners; "the brake on France’s ambitions isn’t the U.S.; it’s other Europeans. Macron advocates a Russia policy of European reengagement with the Kremlin to negotiate a new security order in Europe, which neither the Baltic states nor the Poles support; he advocates a European army Germany doesn’t want, but that Germany, more than others, would have to fund."

Macron’s apparent questioning of Article 5 guarantees was rightly seen by his fellow leaders as a fault. As one of the Alliance’s strongest and most capable military, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a nuclear power, France cannot undermine the very essence of the Alliance. If a healthy debate is good, France should not create any doubt as to its commitment to come to the defense of its allies. Those perceived reservations as well as Macron’s apparent "naiveté" regarding Russia have undermined France’s efforts to bolster the European Union’s defense and see it be more autonomous in its own security.Here we get to the heart of Macron’s challenge: to date, his ideas find remarkably little echo or support with France’s European partners, often seen as profoundly divisive, exacerbating differences within Europe rather than unifying the bloc.

Finally, Macron has yet to offer a clear, credible pathway as to how Europe would become more sovereign, as well as a time horizon for this to happen. Arguably, progress has been made under pressure from France to strengthen the EU’s military capabilities, from the launch of the European Intervention Initiative (though still largely at a declaratory stage so far) to the European Defense Fund or the Permanent Structured Cooperation. However, if these steps do go in the direction of a more capable and autonomous Europe, they both remain baby-steps and highlight the huge capability gaps that Europe would face should there be an American retrenchment from NATO. Macron has so far failed to offer a viable roadmap to a more militarily sovereign Europe that addresses concerns and unites rather than divides. For most Europeans, there is to date just no credible short to medium term alternatives to the Alliance’s role in the defense of Europe.

NATO’s London summit ended with unexpected unity following the display of public acrimony that had preceded it. If Macron’s diagnosis is hard to disagree with, his proposed prescription is much less palatable to France’s European partners. While his assessment deserves proper consideration, he will need to show more consideration for and acknowledgement of the legitimate concerns and interests of his European partners if his proposals are to get any traction. Macron’s comments and subsequent attitude is instilling an inherent suspicion of any initiatives coming from Paris aimed at strengthening Europe’s strategic autonomy. These will likely be presumed to try to undermine NATO, give undue recognition to Russia or serve French rather than European interests and objectives. As Philip Stephens rightly put it, "if Europe prizes its values it will have to defend them". However, the fall-out of Macron’s interview may actually be the exact opposite of its stated goal: the kiss of death for a more autonomous and sovereign Europe – at least in the short run.

Copyright: Bertrand GUAY / AFP