When we talk about the American threat to Europe, it is not just a military issue. It is true that the United States has experienced several major conflicts with European powers. After American independence at the end of the 18th century, we naturally think of the war of 1812 against its former colonial power, the British Empire. Then came the First World War, fought by the United States against Germany in defence of its economic interests. Then, finally, to the Second World War, when the United States emerged as the world’s leading power by opposing the Axis, in particular Germany and Italy. But these military confrontations were always combined with strategic conflicts, whether economic, financial or geopolitical.
American control after 1945
The second half of the 20th century marked the beginning of a turning point in US-European relations. American military support to liberate Europe from Nazism led to the belief that a temporary alliance would exist forever. The duty to remember would be eternal. So the United States began to establish itself in Europe by backing West Germany against the USSR, in exchange for unconditional political support.
But we have always known that alliances between nations are often only cosmetic. As an old proverb often attributed to Napoleon says: ‘Of my enemies I can guard myself; of my friends, may God guard me’. The United States has made this quote its national motto. Thanks to its unrivalled financial power, it tried to control Europe, like any imperial power, through debt. Through the Marshall Plan, the debts owed by the main European countries (Italy, Germany, France, etc.) to the United States were converted into debt,
and control of their gold reserves stored at the Fed, have enabled them to create a predominantly financial stranglehold on the Old Continent. This policy has been reinforced by a national policy of massive indebtedness and a powerful military-industrial complex, which underpins the strength of the dollar and therefore American hegemony. It was also reflected in the creation of NATO in 1949, which served as an instrument of control to prevent the emergence of the ‘defence autonomy’ so prized by European leaders today.
But all this is hardly surprising when you consider that the European project as it exists today was conceived in the United States. During the Second World War, the fathers of Europe (including Jean Monnet), fleeing the war, lived on the other side of the Atlantic. In their ivory towers, they sketched out the contours of the European project. With the idea of ‘creating a United States of Europe’, the objective has always been clear: to build a lasting union that would remain subject to American power. Politically, this strategy was built by separating Western Europe from the USSR throughout the Cold War period (1947-1989), to the benefit of the Americans. It ensured that European countries were divided on this strategic issue, but also that the main enemy of the United States was never an ally of the European continent.
(This is why Trump now considers Europe to be ‘meaner’ than China, in order to avoid any alliance between the two, while Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has recently shown himself to be very close to Xi Jinping).
It then continued in the early 2000s. The ongoing confrontation between the United States and Russia has led Europe to expand eastwards to include countries formerly under Soviet influence, whose cultures are far removed from those of the other Member States. The continent has found itself fragmented, with waves of migration on a massive scale and massive relocations within its own free trade zone. Despite numerous warnings, including those from Medvedev when Putin was Prime Minister, European leaders have ignored Russia’s historical territorial considerations.
After all, the American strategy has continued to grow within the European institutions. Whether through the voices of its leaders, particularly the Germans, who have never ceased to act as spokespersons for the United States in their opposition to Russia. But also more explicitly through the creation of American foundations, institutions and think tanks in Europe, including the French-American Foundation, the German Marshall Fund of the United States and the Atlantic Council Europe, which not only dictate the American agenda on the continent, but also recruit European elites to serve American interests.
Europe becomes the vassal continent of the United States
A long-term strategy has been put in place. To maintain the established order, the United States, like any hegemonic power, sought to make its main allies dependent on its model. Until this interference ended up transforming the continent into a virtual American colony. On the technological front, the bulk of Europe’s digital infrastructure relies on American companies such as Amazon, Microsoft and Google, which dominate the cloud market and control access to sensitive data held by government departments, banks and hospitals. On the industrial front, through the wholesale takeover of European flagships, the destruction of energy sites such as Nord Stream 1 and 2 (contracts linking Russia and Germany) and the replacement of Russian gas with American shale gas… On the economic and financial front,
by aligning the ECB with the Fed’s policy in order to avoid a sharp fluctuation in the euro against the dollar – at a time when European countries are constantly investing in US bonds – and the almost total dollarisation of European banking and financial services (which, moreover, are subject to the extraterritoriality of US law, in the same way as the United States’ official enemies, including Iran, Cuba and Venezuela)… These dependencies, the corollary of unlimited American financial power, are contributing to the gradual weakening of all forms of action by the so-called European ‘allies’.
This low-key war continues today on all fronts. At the end of the day, it reflects a ‘business as usual’ approach that is ‘only more assumed by the Republicans than by the Democrats’, to quote a friend working in an Anglo-Saxon think-tank. Trump’s recent stance on Europe might appear to some as a U-turn, but it is simply the next logical step. The message is clear: ‘follow me or get out of my way’.
The United States is therefore openly distancing itself from Europe while at the same time drawing closer to Russia. Where Putin was once seen as the United States’ main target, he is now almost an ally, to the detriment of European countries. The Europe of peace promised by NATO is being erased by the war in Ukraine, while the Old Continent remains Ukraine’s biggest financial backer and the budgets of its Member States are sinking into the red. As if that wasn’t enough, this military equipment, most of which comes from across the Atlantic, is accompanied by growing demands from the United States, which is asking Europe to increase its military budget to support its own military industry.
As Erwan Davoux, former head of section at the DGSE, pointed out to me, Germany, Poland and other European countries continue to buy American F-35s, whose operation depends on software that Washington can deactivate remotely… Further proof that, despite the lyrical flights of fancy about ‘European strategic autonomy’, this remains no more than an incantation…
Admittedly, the American threat to Europe today has nothing to do with armed conflict. There has been talk recently of tense declarations, of a trade war with tariffs on targeted products, of strategic contracts being broken (notably on submarines)… But the risk is not in this growing hostility, it is in the inability of European leaders to contemplate an ounce of independence today. This threat has persisted for so many decades that its consequences have become irreversible. The Old Continent is orphaned. How can we acquire independence without sufficient budgetary room for manoeuvre? How can an army be revitalised without industrial power? How can we talk about political union when cultural and historical differences run so deep? The challenges are as numerous as the American victories over Europe. History is repeating itself and, once again, it is showing that loyalty is not part of the language of diplomacy.