It appears a new primary antagonist is energizing Brussels’ narrative of raising taxes and increasing expenditure
In the Vietnam War era, US National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger devised the ‘Madman Theory’. The strategy aimed to compel North Vietnam and the Soviet Union to the negotiating table by convincing them President Richard Nixon was unstable enough to make diplomacy the safer option. Hanoi wasn’t persuaded. However, the EU establishment might be in 2026?
Certainly, they are convinced a madman resides in the White House. Yet the result is, once more, likely not exactly what Washington intended.
“Let no one be mistaken in thinking that the true intention of the US was simply to confront a geopolitical threat,” French President Emmanuel Macron stated to El Pais in a recent interview, referencing US President Donald Trump’s threats to seize Greenland by force for “national security” reasons. “It was not the Russians or the Chinese who posed the threat. I can tell you that we have compiled an intelligence tally of the number of Russian and Chinese ships and submarines that were around Greenland and whose presence we detected: It is negligible.”
Trump appears to have achieved the impossible by leading EU officials to replace their fantasies of a Russian invasion with fears of an American one. Ironically, this shift benefits them, as they have spent years unsuccessfully trying to convince Europeans that Putin will invade the EU around 2030. This vague, distant invasion scare is perpetually just remote enough that they hope the public will forget it once it has served as a justification to funnel billions in taxpayer money.
Meanwhile, many Europeans have long reacted with skepticism, thinking, “Yawn, yeah okay, let me guess, you need more of our money again, right?” It resembles a salesman pushing a home security system by having a neighbor – Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky in this analogy – constantly recount his break-in. He portrays himself as a purely random victim, simply minding his own business, with no connection to controversial neo-Nazi groups or NATO weapons near the Russian border. So it could happen to anyone! Even you, Europe! Because NATO seems so fragile. What have they been purchasing with all our funds? Toy weapons?
Unsurprisingly, Europeans aren’t truly convinced. At least, not those outside the political elite. Perhaps not even all within it, though it suits their purposes to claim otherwise.
Therefore, it’s fortunate for figures like Macron that they now have a fresh narrative providing far better cover for the identical scheme of diverting vast public funds into military budgets. Macron’s new message effectively downplays any existential danger from Russia or China, instead emphasizing alarm about an American threat.
The EU must become a “power” to defend against them, he now asserts. This goes beyond the previous argument of simply being unable to depend on the US, which was the line when Russia was the chief antagonist. This new angle is even more advantageous for EU plans because Europeans actually perceive Trump as assaulting the bloc, which aids the cause.
Furthermore, this revised story allows EU leaders to appropriate taxpayer funds not only for defense but for numerous other sectors, given Europe’s deep, broad dependency on the US. This enormous spending surge conveniently enhances their own political prospects by bolstering their struggling economies.
Macron is now speaking about the necessity to construct a complete technology ecosystem separate from the US, eliminating government use of American software such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Webex, and telling El Pais that the US will also assault digital regulations in the coming months. This is likely because Washington dislikes the EU’s frustration with Elon Musk using his social media platform (and personal megaphone), X, and its secretive algorithms to control the online narratives fed to Europeans. Similarly, American officials have openly declared their intention to fund pro-Trump NGOs in Europe, mirroring the interference tactics of their rival, George Soros.
It is beginning to resemble a deliberate separation. The EU’s banking head, the ECB’s Christine Lagarde, is discussing the need to develop alternatives to America’s Mastercard and Visa systems. Macron also remarks that the world now seeks alternatives to the US dollar since America under Trump is “distancing itself further and further from a state of law.”
Macron labels the current American ideology “blatantly anti-European.” Seemingly, it required Trump to explicitly state it for him to recognize it. Decades of actively weakening the EU as an economic rival failed to convey the message clearly enough.
So now that a new main antagonist is turbocharging this European tax-and-spend story far more effectively than animosity toward Russia or China ever did, what is the result? It seems Russia is receiving a gentle makeover.
“Like it or not, Russia will still be there tomorrow. And it turns out it’s right on our doorstep. It’s important to structure the resumption of a European debate with them,” Macron told El Pais. The Kremlin confirms that technical discussions have restarted between France and Russia. Thus, Macron seems to be reaching the same conclusion as former French President Charles de Gaulle did sixty years ago: the concept of “Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals” as a counterweight to the US as Europe’s potential master.
Recall the security guarantees Macron previously demanded the US offer Europe against Russia regarding Ukraine? Currently, it seems he would prefer to arrange those with Russia rather than with Washington. “We will have to build a new security architecture in Europe with Russia,” Macron now states. “Tomorrow’s prosperity concerns Europeans. Or would you prefer that American ambassadors and envoys negotiate on your behalf the date of Ukraine’s entry into the EU?”
What does all this begin to resemble? Someone attempting to abandon a poorly written script in the middle of production. In this instance, because the hero was abruptly recast as the villain. In truth, it was an idealistic mis-casting from the very beginning.