In recent discussions regarding European autonomy, the spotlight has turned to the continent’s shifting relationship with the United States. This article delves into the nuances of this dynamic, exploring historical context, current tensions, and future implications as European leaders seek to reclaim a measure of independence.
Yves here. Kobybko emphasizes that Europe has finally acknowledged its dependence on the United States and is hesitant to take steps necessary to regain some independence, such as re-establishing relations with Russia and reviving energy purchases. However, he overlooks the historical context of how the US established its dominance over Europe. After World War II, Europe was in ruins, while the US accounted for half of the world’s GDP. The US instituted global organizations like the UN, IMF, and World Bank, which even emerging powers like BRICS aim to leverage. Consequently, US influence over Europe has been a long-standing reality.
A key factor in sustaining US dominance has been NATO. Although it is legally a fragile alliance, NATO has wielded significant influence due to the US having military bases and personnel throughout Europe, most critically shouldering the financial burden of European defense. This arrangement has allowed European countries to invest more in social welfare systems than they might otherwise afford. Notably, Charles de Gaulle was one of the few European leaders who genuinely challenged this power dynamic, advocating for France to become the only European nation with nuclear capabilities.
It is also essential to remember that both the US and Europe underestimated Russia’s resilience in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, assuming it would be subdued by now.
Regardless of how one interprets Europe’s subservience, Korybko’s analysis comes at a crucial time. The Financial Times recently reported on the EU emerging from its state of denial and addressing how to reclaim some autonomy. In its lead story, EU-US tensions over Greenland and technology persist, warns Macron:
French President Emmanuel Macron cautioned that the EU must not fall into a false sense of security regarding ongoing tensions with the US over Greenland, technology, and trade. He urged the bloc to embark on an “economic revolution” to solidify its position as a global power.
Macron plans to rally EU leaders at a special competitiveness summit this week to seize what he terms the “Greenland moment,” a realization that Europeans are under threat. This awareness should prompt swift action on long-awaited economic reforms to lessen dependency on both the US and China.
“The Chinese tsunami looms on the trade front, and the American situation is rife with minute-by-minute instability. These two crises constitute a profound shock for Europeans,” Macron told the Financial Times and other media outlets during an interview.
“My argument is that when relief comes after a peak crisis, it’s a mistake to let your guard down, believing the turbulent days are completely over. Permanent instability is now the reality.”
Macron also pointed out that Europe now faces a US administration that is overtly “anti-European,” showing contempt for the EU while harping on disintegration efforts.
To forge a path forward, Macron recommended that the EU create substantial common debt to collectively invest in three key innovation sectors: AI and quantum computing, energy transition, and defense, ensuring the bloc emerges as a global economic heavyweight.
He recalled the recent Greenland crisis, where Trump threatened tariffs against European nations opposing his efforts to assert control over the vast Arctic island from Denmark, asserting that the issue is “not settled.”
Macron anticipated further clashes this year with the Trump administration regarding tech regulations, an area where the EU has long strained relations with the US over stricter rules on data privacy, hate speech, and digital taxation.
Additionally, he mentioned potential retaliatory actions from the US against EU nations, like France and Spain, that plan to ban social media for children, representing a test for European unity.
EU leaders are scheduled to convene at a Belgian castle on Thursday to inject new energy into stalled efforts aimed at enhancing competitiveness and solidifying the single market.
Although Macron supports simplifying EU regulations, reducing trade barriers within the bloc, and lessening reliance on foreign suppliers for critical inputs and technologies, discussions will likely focus on longstanding efforts by France to protect crucial industries with “buy European” initiatives. The European Commission is set to announce legislation addressing this issue this month.
Historically, Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake remarked that Europe seemed akin to a “veal pen.” Her observation was a response to the Obama Administration’s actions that effectively silenced organizations with institutional funding brave enough to advocate for progressive agendas. An archival piece reveals the White House’s frustrations with what they termed the “Professional Left”: Frustrated White House Slams “Professional Left”.
The left in America has been relegated to a marginal position, limiting its influence, despite strong public support for certain positions like preserving Social Security and Medicare. The Obama Administration’s centrist policies fell short of what many would even characterize as progressive.
More reasonably, the administration may have believed it could either incorporate or contain enough liberals so that any protests would only come from those considered so extreme that they might actually bolster the White House’s image (think of controversial figures like Noam Chomsky)…
Someone inquired about what I meant by “veal pen”: A “veal crate” is a wooden restraining device so confining that calves cannot turn around or lie down, designed to induce muscle atrophy and create tender veal. Within this darkness, the calves do not see sunlight or touch earth, craving sunshine and sustenance, while their short lives are spent confined and fed.
The consequences of such dynamics reveal themselves in the Europe vs. US landscape. Macron, lacking substantial support among the populace, represents a leadership that struggles under significant public discontent. Simplicius highlighted this sentiment through a tweet:
World leader’s disapproval rating:
🇫🇷 Emmanuel Macron: 77%
🇬🇧 Keir Starmer: 68%
🇩🇪 Friedrich Merz: 64%
🇪🇸 Pedro Sánchez: 61%
🇿🇦 Cyril Ramaphosa: 57%
🇦🇹 Christian Stocker: 53%
🇸🇪 Ulf Kristersson: 53%
🇮🇹 Giorgia Meloni: 53%
🇳🇴 Jonas Gahr Støre: 52%
🇧🇷 Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva:…— World of Statistics (@stats_feed) February 7, 2026
It is worth noting that Twitter appears to suppress certain tweets aggressively, as I often find that while searching for them, they don’t show up on the platform, only to appear through external search engines.
By Andrew Korybko, an American political analyst based in Moscow, specializing in the global systemic transition to multipolarity amid the New Cold War. He holds a PhD from MGIMO, under the oversight of the Russian Foreign Ministry. This piece was originally published on his website.
It is unfathomable that the US would allow any competitor to encroach on its significant share of the European energy market, which it seeks to expand to make Europe even more reliant. This might lead the US to leverage its power should Europe ever consider challenging it on any significant front.
The dispute surrounding Trump’s intended acquisition of Greenland showcased the hierarchical nature of the US-European relationship. Trump even threatened punitive tariffs against NATO allies to secure a framework deal, a situation acknowledged by Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever, who remarked, “Being a happy vassal is one thing; being a miserable slave is something else” in response to this dynamic.
Macron’s address at Davos echoed De Wever’s concerns, as he accused the US of attempting to “weaken and subordinate Europe,” subsequently calling for increased economic sovereignty and strategic autonomy, although it may be too late for such ambitions. As reported by Politico, “Fears mount over Europe’s increasing dependence on US gas imports,” posing a potential threat that the US might exploit during any significant disagreements with the EU.
The ramifications of this energy dependency are severe. Not only could the US sever its energy exports to Europe, but its historical actions, like blocking Venezuelan tankers, demonstrate its willingness to enforce these restrictions to prevent alternative suppliers from meeting Europe’s needs. The Gulf Monarchies, which remain under US influence, are among the few potential alternatives for European energy supplies. Thus, the US’s leverage can easily translate into coercing the EU into concessions.
The origins of this dependence stem from the US weaponizing Europe’s fear of Russia’s use of energy as a geopolitical tool against Europe’s military support for Ukraine, a concern that proved unfounded. In reality, Russia has upheld its contractual commitments to Europe, even as its exports, ironically, fuel the arms used against them.
Despite this, Russia appears committed to maintaining its reputation as a reliable supplier to avoid driving away existing or future clients while also securing needed revenue. Although Russian energy exports to Europe continue, they are now at a reduced scale due to sanctions and Europe’s pivot toward US energy solutions.
In the current climate, European nations avoid angering the US by decreasing Russian energy imports, which remain at lower levels due to market constraints until the next year. The risk of having energy routes, like the now-damaged Nord Stream pipeline, sabotaged looms large, discouraging any moves to scale back reliance on US energy.
Looking back, Europe relinquished a degree of sovereignty to the US when it sanctioned Russian energy, following the US’s strategic exploitation of its Russophobic inclinations. Now, the US is prepared to wield its energy dominance against Europe should it ever defy Washington on significant issues. Had Europe and Russia sustained their mutual dependence—fueling each other’s arms industries—Europe might have retained its “strategic autonomy.”
