While the risks of Washington weakening or removing American protection of Europe continue to grow, the British and French armies constitute, in many respects, the most complete and experienced military forces in the entire European theater, with the exception of Russia. They are also the only two European countries with strategic nuclear power.
However, these two key powers for the security of the old continent now seem to be in decline, paying the price for military budgets that were too small and operational activity that was too sustained for the size of their armies during the 2000s and 2010s. In addition, they are exposed to significant difficulties in the areas of human resources and severe trade-offs in terms of equipment programs.
Today, the risk of seeing the United States disengage from the European theatre in a particularly short time frame is constantly increasing. These two countries could then have to assume the role of protector of Europe, for which neither is fully equipped.
However, what would happen if the British and French armies were to operate as a unified armed force, to contain the Russian threat, but also to unite Europeans around a new security pact?
In this section:
The growing threat of US disengagement from the European and related theatres
In a recent interview, former President Donald Trump, once again the frontrunner in the polls in the race for the White House, reiterated his threats regarding a withdrawal of protection " quote " by the United States, to the European NATO countries, if the Europeans "did not pay their of", without really specifying what the " of " in question, represented.
In any case, between the words of candidate Trump and those of his running mate, JD Vance, there is little doubt that if they were to return to the Oval Office, American support for European defense would be under historic threat, even if the Europeans were to give in to the necessarily increasing and iterative demands of the new American president.
Furthermore, even if he did not carry out his threats, or if Kamala Harris won the presidency, the development of tensions between Washington and Beijing, or even between Seoul and Pyongyang, is very likely to lead the American armies to have to disengage massively from the European, Middle Eastern and African theaters, to concentrate their forces on the Pacific theater, facing the People's Liberation Army.
It seems, therefore, obvious that Europeans must now seriously anticipate an American withdrawal from Europe, and perhaps even a threat to the nuclear shield with which the United States has protected Western Europe against the Soviet Union and now Russia until now.
French and British armies remain below the credibility threshold to replace American protection
However, the US military does not only represent NATO's main military force, nor the nuclear shield of all its members, apart from Great Britain and France, which have their own strategic deterrents.
There are 75% of this article left to read, Subscribe to access it!
The Classic subscriptions provide access to
articles in their full version, and without advertising,
from €1,99. Subscriptions Premium also allow access to archives (articles over two years old)
Christmas promotion : 15% discount on Premium and Classic subscriptions annual with the code MetaXmas2024, from 11/12 to 27/12 only.
Hello,
Many underestimate the very strong antagonism that exists between D. Trump and the American military institution. Numerous incidents with the military had punctuated Trump's previous term, sometimes clashing with the entire hierarchy. The Pentagon's senior officers display real distrust for this man who despises them and "who recognizes only one military value: obedience to his authority" (sic). The gap has widened further with the current candidate Trump.
The question of NATO does not arise at all with the same strategic stakes for these American military and the executive of the White House.
It is not certain that the American executive will have the last word.
For a more detailed look at this antagonism, read The Atlantic's interesting article here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/10/trump-military-generals-hitler/680327/
(article which obviously gave rise, given its title, to numerous Fakes)
Hello,
English friends are our best friends and also our best enemies.
The fact remains that these are people who know how to fight, we have fought in several theaters together, and that it is not an operetta army like some others, despite the slimming down it has undergone over the last fifteen years, thanks to its wonderful politicians.
It is much better to try something with the English, even if it does not work every time, than to continue attempts with Germany, attempts which are always fruitless...
Hello M. Wolf,
It seems to me that the history of European mobilizations (in 1914 or 1940) shows what profound psychological changes can occur in a few weeks, once a country is at war, and can be accompanied by dazzling industrial changes. Changes that often remained unimaginable a few months or years earlier, alas.
The hypothesis you are considering does not seem absurd to me at all and reminds me of the iconoclastic (and even more ambitious) project of "merging" the two countries, of linking their destinies at the heart of the debacle of June 1940. An ephemeral project certainly, but strongly supported by... Churchill and de Gaulle, all the same, who were not the first to come to the reflection on imperialism and the nation. The idea of such a rapprochement took root before the war, a Franco-British "union" was then the subject of reflections in diplomatic circles to face the German threat.
This pre-war preparation had not come to fruition, any more than the project itself came to fruition in 1940, rejected within a few hours by Paris. The whole, however, testifies to a cultural, economic and political proximity between the two countries, especially in the face of an oriental threat.
But precisely. What place should be given to the Germans and the Italians (not to mention other European countries) in this "Entente Cordiale" which has lasted since 1904? A thorny question of European balance that you raise very rightly. Let's not recreate a new (and disastrous) "game of alliances" in Europe.
https://www.charles-de-gaulle.org/blog/2020/06/03/lettren13-16-juin-1940-projet-dunion-des-deux-peuples/
From my point of view, a US "abandonment" would create such a trauma in Europe and such a call for air vis-à-vis our adversaries that it is necessary to create a point of gravity allowing others to find themselves in a sufficiently reassuring context to recreate a global unity. However, if we start to multiply the actors in the initial discussions, we inevitably add delays, delays that risk proving very disabling very quickly. What is being discussed here is not a fundamental movement, but an emergency plan, which should be converted, if necessary, in less than 48 hours, to allow a European recomposition of NATO, in one week, that is to say within the reaction time of the adversary.
In terms of European strategy and alliances, economic interests lead the way and Germany must preserve its industrial tool to preserve its economy, even if it means undermining its "competing allies" such as France and England, its main rivals and, in this case, especially France, which does not benefit from American military support. France is therefore the weak point in Europe compared to Germany, which spends its time and energy sabotaging joint military projects. There is therefore no point in pursuing a policy of cooperation with the Germans when we see how they treat Franco-German projects with, to say the least, a certain nonchalance. No, in terms of the national economy, it is every man for himself. The Germans are keen to maintain their leadership in Europe, even if it means trampling on their allies, particularly their worst ally, France, which is also in great difficulty.
There is no goodwill except outside the economic and military imperatives of each power, whether European or elsewhere, the Germans "manufacture" in China and sell in Europe for the greater good of their trade balance. The French buy their consumer goods in China and no longer manufacture much, hence the deplorable situation of our trade balance which makes our country the "poodle" of Germany. Only the French military BIDT is pulling its weight a little, but for how long?
If all men of good will could hear you! Thank you for your papers.
Thank you ) Afterwards, we must keep in mind that it is always eminently easier to say than to do ))
Spiked helmets remain and will remain at the center of our problems... whether economic or military.
This path seems very interesting to give them the wood 🙂
Beautiful prospective vision, convincing although a little utopian (but I hope I'm wrong).
I just think that in your explanations you have reversed Bir Hakeim and Mers-El-Kebir, without this hindering the overall understanding of the development in question.
Sincerely
well seen, corrected)
Imagining a Franco-British alliance of a structural type in terms of defence would be a historic first. It would mean overcoming centuries of rivalries, wars and mistrust. Beyond cultural differences, it is above all the political and financial challenge that will have to be met. Putting aside national interests, overcoming divisions, and finally working for the common European good. Such cooperation could redefine relations between our two countries, by showing that, in the face of threats, unity is stronger than divisions. A real revolution in the history of our relations but also in the history of humanity, a beautiful dream.