Should we seek autonomy by becoming a true political and economic federation, or should we persist in our strategic dependence on the United States of America? And if so, what will we achieve?
The European Union, today more than ever, appears to be facing a crucial crossroads. Donald Trump, in fact, has once again made his invitation/exhortation thunderous to the Old Continent. During an official event, also attended by the US Ambassador to NATO, Matthew Whitaker, he apparently stated that the United States would soon ban Europeans from purchasing Russian oil. No later than September 19, the European Union, almost as if responding to the American "invitation," therefore expressed the desire to impose a further ban on Russian gas imports, as a "punitive measure" (if one wanted to call it that) part of a new package of sanctions aimed, on the one hand, at minimizing the proceeds that Vladimir Putin's Russia would use to finance its war and, on the other, at satisfying President Donald Trump's request. But it doesn't end there. Further, less than reassuring news seems to have come from the United States regarding cuts in security assistance provided to certain countries, such as Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, as well as the Baltic states, all of which border Russia. Put simply, the European Union must work, or rather, make do, to minimize its current dependence on the United States, which, evidently, will focus on other priorities that better meet its needs.
It doesn't seem necessary to bother Lapalisse to understand that Donald Trump's not-so-disguised intention, ever since his inauguration, has been to strengthen the United States' position on global energy markets. And energy, in fact, appears to be the most useful and significant geopolitical tool for leveraging markets and prevailing in the competitive relationship with China. Granted, and probably not granted, that the latter allows itself to be overwhelmed. But this appears to be the state of the art, whether we like it or not. Europe's need for energy diversification, essentially, seems to have translated into a bargaining chip entirely to America's advantage in waging its subtle "trade war," considering that no later than August 21, 2025, the European Union and the United States signed an agreement that, on the pure and simple level of transatlantic relations, would appear anything but advantageous for the Old Continent. Whether this was a pragmatic choice will only tell, but the premise, even in light of recent developments, seems unconvincing. First, because even considering everything, this economic commitment could actually strengthen geopolitical dependence on the United States, undermining the Old Continent's desire to assert itself as an autonomous power straddling the East and West. Second, because if Europe wants to discuss energy transition, then the agreement reached, presented as a necessary pragmatic choice, could actually jeopardize its implementation, as it appears to be premised on increasing American LNG imports within a highly unstable geopolitical landscape, without it being clear what advantage European countries have gained in this circumstance. Finally, because the European Union's primary objective should be to reduce the high cost of energy, which is paralyzing the economy and impacting citizens' shopping carts. If the European Union and its twenty-seven member states intend to pursue the goal of achieving strategic, political, and economic autonomy, so-called social sustainability, and competitiveness on the international market, the path to take, without any ifs or buts, is that of autonomy in order to ensure citizens benefit from advantageous decisions and appreciable living conditions.
