Europe finds itself at a crossroads as it reevaluates its defense strategies amid shifting global dynamics. With U.S. disengagement becoming increasingly apparent, French President Emmanuel Macron has warned since 2017 of the need for Europe to prepare itself for self-defense. His insights echo even louder as Donald Trump’s presidency has put the long-standing American commitment to European security under scrutiny. The question now looms large: can Europe establish its own strategic autonomy without the safety net of U.S. support?
Timothy Garton Ash, the renowned British historian and public intellectual, recently contributed to this discourse by coining the phrase "Vive le Churchillo-Gaullisme!". This phrase merges historical significance with contemporary urgency, calling on Europe to channel the spirits of Winston Churchill and Charles de Gaulle during this uncertain chapter. Both leaders are emblematic of resistance and tenacity during dark times, and invoking their legacies serves as both inspiration and caution.
Churchill and de Gaulle understood the importance of unity against tyranny—a lesson Europe must relearn as it grapples with the menacing posture of Russian aggression. Currently, with the Ukraine crisis intensifying, Europe appears orphaned of American protection, locked between U.S. isolationism and the looming threat from its eastern neighbor.
"Should we die for Danzig?" was once the pivotal query of pre-World War II sentiment, expressing reluctance to engage far-off conflicts. Now, as this historic analogy evolves, the question has transformed to "Should we die for Kyiv?" The sentiment exemplifies the grave stakes under which European nations find themselves today.
Leadership from Paris and London is particularly significant. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is forming coalitions of the willing, closely collaborating with Macron to respond effectively to America’s responsive void. The current EU commitment of €800 billion to defense, though significant, is muddied by reality; only €150 billion is actual European funding, the rest merely permitting individual member states to aggregate their own defense expenditures. This bureaucratic complexity highlights the need for consolidated and rationalized defense approaches, particularly as Europe boasts around 170 major weapon systems compared to only 30 for the United States.
The obstacles to achieving cohesive defense strategies are substantial. Notably, the historical narratives and self-perceptions of European nations create disparate approaches to security. During international crises, every British prime minister evokes the spirit of Churchill, and French presidents envision de Gaulle. Yet, the strategic reflexes and military instincts across Europe showcase diversity, requiring unity to evade historical pitfalls.
The time has come for Europe to embrace what could be termed "Churchillo-Gaullism": a synthesis of the two seminal figures' best virtues. This approach not only promotes unity but also acknowledges national identities and historical contexts, which can nonetheless collaborate for collective defense imperatives. European public opinion, influenced by the optimism of peace, must reconcile with the reality of potential conflicts requiring preparation.
Ironically, it’s within democratic confines where the progress toward unified defense often falters. Every nation’s leader capitalizes on pledges for national job growth through defense spending, which may deny the vision of coherent and rational European defense policy. Real restructuring demands acknowledging the cumbersome burden of excess military capabilities—where consolidation could lead to efficiencies and capabilities neither nation can achieve independently.
National debts are high, and populations are aging, raising demands for increased healthcare and social expenditures instead of military investments. This dilemma cannot be understated as leaders push for increased defense budgets. Yet it is also the responsibility of these leaders to communicate honestly with the public about the gravity of the situation—pointing out the necessity of preparing not just for peace, but for the possibility of protracted conflicts as well.
Churchill’s reflections on maintaining collective purpose amid complex global circumstances still resonate today. He asserted, "It is harder to summon, even among friends and allies, the vitality of purpose amid the perplexities of a world situation which is neither peace nor war,"—a phrase articulated during his presentation of the Croix de la Libération to de Gaulle back in 1958.
Although historical references help ground contemporary debates, they should not overshadow the reality facing Europe: the urgent need to reconstitute unified efforts to fortify national defenses. With the realities of contemporary geopolitics pressing upon them, Europe's leaders must adopt firm, decisive strategies leading to more cohesive defense frameworks. If they are to succeed, then they must acknowledge the full weight of their roles as vanguards of stability on the continent.
Timothy Garton Ash's forthcoming work, titled "Europes: Une histoire personnelle," sets the stage for these discussions, encapsulating the urgency for Europe to stand resolute and united. Its arrival certainly couldn’t be more timely, as Europe navigates through this unprecedented era of uncertainty brought upon by shifting alliances.
Europe finds itself at this pivotal juncture, and the call to action is clear: revive the fighting spirit of both Churchill and de Gaulle, for if these icons of the past were preparing for the future, their decree would likely be the same—Vive l’Europe! Vive le Churchillo-Gaullisme!
