Lothair, Louis, Charles ... & Sam's Bar Tab

the strategic sea anchor that is Europe

For the better part of 1,200 years, Western Europe’s defining characteristic was an ongoing problem from the simple fact that Charlemagne’s three grandsons from Louis I couldn’t get along.

Grandpaw’s empire broke in to West Francia (France), East Francia (Germany), and Lothringia (what France & Germany keep squabbling over).

Of course, their conflict would bleed over to and absorb some of their Slavic neighbors to the east. A lust for power led both the East Francians and West Francians - from Napoleon to Hitler - to reach a little too far in to the east to meet their ruin at the hand of the Rus and Father Winter.

If you keep this simple part of the human geography in perspective and back up a bit to see the larger pixels, the ebb and flow of the last dozen centuries make a fair bit of sense.

So, since WWII ended, the East and West Francians have generally kept their paws off each other and have mostly left their unabsorbed Slavic neighbors alone. It really has been an ahistorical period of peace west of the Oder River.

Why?

Well, it took the descendants of Europe’s second sons, every disruptive child that couldn’t wait to get out of their village, religious fanatics, failed revolutionaries, genocide survivors, freed slaves, and foolish adventures to cross the Atlantic and put a stop to all that foolishness.

Well, the Frankish tribes are getting grumpy about it.

Strategic autonomy — the ability to provide for one’s own security, he told journalists aboard the plane flying him home from a visit with Chinese President Xi Jinping in April — must become Europe’s organizing principle. Without it, Macron said, Europe risks becoming a “vassal” to other powers, including the United States, which could be on a collision course with China over Taiwan’s independence.

The problem, according to analysts, is strategic autonomy means different things to different governments in Europe, and there’s no defined end state of when it might be realized. While there is a shared understanding that a new beefiness in defense matters is vital, the degree of continued reliance on the United States — with its atomic weapons and troop deployments across Europe — as the ultimate security guarantor is where opinions collide.

Of course, the King of West Francia … I mean the President of France … sees this “strategically autonomous” Europe being led by … France.

I’m not sure what the East Francians think as they are still dealing with their late unpleasantness with the Rus … I mean Russians.

Those Europeans in the former Lothringia are just happy they are not the subject of anyone’s concern right now … but what about the Slavic nations to the east and southeast?

There is a widening gap now between Eastern and Western European countries along those lines. In Romania, for example, any military measures to protect the eastern front are perceived as having limited value unless they involve American boots on the ground, ideally stationed there forever.

In Western European governments, some still expect the bloc’s economic prowess and mere proclamations about Europe’s own defense ambitions to insulate them from Russian aggression.

No, the Central and Eastern Europeans know their history better than anyone. They simply do not have a good record with the visits of the armies of the West Francians, the East Francians, or the Rus … but these armies full of the world’s rejects from across the Atlantic? They seem to prevent … if nothing else .. the Francians and Rus from burning their cities.

There is a problem here … those North Americans are tired of being responsible for nations that after 1,200 years really should learn to get along … or at least pay their own way;

Nevertheless, Europeans sense the writing on the wall calling for a greater degree of autonomy, driven by a mixture of increased defense spending and improved trust in the collective; that’s because America’s focus may shift to competition with China.

Also possible is a scenario in which a future U.S. president could simply stop caring about Europe’s security, or actively sabotage key institutions like the European Union or NATO.

“I do not think the idea of strategic autonomy is dead,” said Bastian Giegerich, the director of defense and military analysis at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a think tank based in London. “One of the main drivers of it remains intact: the sense that the U.S. in the long run will be drawn away from Europe and will focus on the Indo-Pacific.”

Many North Americans - your humble blogg’r amongst them - agree.

I am a strong advocate of NATO, as regulars know, and believe 2% should be a required floor with significant consequences should member states fail to reach it, but I will repeat my call of the last two decades that remains unchanged - in a large part - by the Russo-Ukrainian War.

As part of the alliance, we should maintain combined training and logistic bases in Europe with our NATO allies, participate in NATO staffs, and rotate forces for training and security as a back up to European forces, as needed. Besides that, almost no maneuver forces should be there in normal circumstances.

As much as Western European elites seem to resent the Unites States, they sure are not making efforts to get off of Uncle Sam’s natsec teat;

But with Europe heavily dependent on U.S. cash and weaponry to back Ukraine, the question is: How useful a guardian angel can Europe be to countries now trembling on Russia’s flank?

Nathalie Tocci, the head of the Rome-based think tank IAI, said there is no doubt Europe’s hope of being able to tackle external threats alone was exposed by the Ukraine war, although not in the way one might expect.

“It’s not so much because the U.S. is doing the heavy lifting when it comes to supporting Kyiv, since the EU and U.K. are doing a lot when taken together, but it’s because Europe’s defense procurement dependency on the U.S. is increasing,” she said.

A man holds a poster reading "Who's next? Latvia? Lithuania? Austria Moldova Estonia? Poland Slovakia?" as demonstrators protest in Vienna, Austria, on Feb. 23, 2023. (Alex Halada/AFP via Getty Images)

When European defense budgets rose at the outbreak of the war, some envisaged a boom for common European programs. However, the opposite occurred, as nations opted for quick, off-the-shelf purchases, often from the U.S., including F-35 fighter jets for Germany and Abrams tanks for Poland.

“This is bad news for Europe, but also for the U.S., since in a world in which the U.S. is no longer the global hegemon, it would surely have an interest in having more capable rather than merely dependent partners,” Tocci said.

The West Francians, East Francians, and even the Britons … are they really ready?

“Under Johnson, strategic autonomy meant Brexit freeing the U.K. from the diktats of Brussels. It meant an untethered Britain free to follow its own course, chiefly through a ‘Global Britain’ ambition that would see London forge relationships through bilateral, multilateral and coalition means and bolster influence across the world,” he said. “Under Rishi Sunak, it appears to mean closer ties with the European Union, with an emphasis on continuing the Johnson Cabinet’s strong record of support for Ukraine, plus remaining vigilant about the looming challenge of China.”

But for all the talk of strategic autonomy ambitions and a review that seems to prioritize soft power over hard, the billion-pound question is whether Britain has the military wherewithal to achieve its goals.

Indeed, that question applies to all of Europe.

Germany’s “Zeitenwende” — Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s declaration of a renewed emphasis on defense last year that came with a €100 billion special fund — has become something of a harbinger on whether strategic autonomy will have teeth.

So far, critics have said, the money is flowing too slowly.

Regardless of what I want - I guess the pull of Europe will be with us for awhile.

Meanwhile, across the Pacific Ocean…