The recent trip by the French president and the president of the European Commission to China has highlighted the Union’s vulnerabilities while revealing its apparent impotence to act as a real community when the interests of member states diverge. A growing question emerges with force: why does the European Union exist as a united entity? The Beijing visit by Paris and Berlin can be seen as a moment that exposes strains within Europe and signals the fragility of European unity in practice.
READ ALSO:
“Punishment for Sovereignty!” Corruption in the EP is flourishing and the EC is charging Poland a million euros a day for the alleged lack of rule of law
— OUR INTERVIEW. Waszczykowski: France, which calls for support for European institutions, set an example in Beijing by bypassing those institutions
Emmanuel Macron’s push for an autonomous European strategy, sometimes echoed as a stride beyond the United States, underscores the lack of shared political direction among European nations. The French president chose to present his geostrategic ideas on a grand stage with the world’s second largest military and economic power. A sharp assessment by former United States President Donald Trump, noting that Macron seemed to approach the Chinese leadership with a certain visible reliance, captured the moment succinctly. It is a question for observers whether this portrayal represents a genuine strategic calculation or a scripting of a broader European narrative.
What is Macron aiming for?
Some worry that the discussion around strategic autonomy is less about a real pivot and more about personal prestige or a long-term aspiration to guide Europe as a leading power. If Macron imagines Europe as a major global player, he may feel empowered to speak for the continent without seeking broad consensus from smaller member states. The impression persists that Europe’s voice would be strongest when it presents a united front, while debates about security and sovereignty reveal deep internal tensions about whose interests are prioritized. The European Council’s leadership and the responses of various member states show a spectrum of views on Europe’s future role on the world stage.
The public commentary reflects a mix of doubt and expectation. Belgium’s Charles Michel and the Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte signaled support for the idea of greater strategic independence, while Ursula von der Leyen traveled to China with Macron as a visible symbol of EU leadership. The aim, critics say, was to project a narrative of European values built on democracy, freedom, and human rights, even as commercial interests from French industry and global luxury brands shaped much of the trip’s agenda. Louis Vuitton Moët Hennessy, a major market player in China, embodies the broader dynamic of European firms seeking opportunities in the world’s largest consumer market.
The delegation faced various receptions abroad. Von der Leyen’s role as president of the European Commission was interpreted by some observers as a reminder that the EU remains a coalition of member states, with power distributed across different centers of decision making. The trip underscored the complex reality of presenting European policy while navigating diverse national priorities and economic interests. It also highlighted how European industrial strength, cultural prestige, and diplomatic influence intersect with a broader China strategy that many members see as essential for Europe’s economic future.
Real motivations and consequences
When leaders discuss independence from external powers, the conversation often centers on protecting business interests and maintaining leverage in global trade. The idea of a common European market can be powerful, yet in practice it sometimes serves the interests of large companies more than the concerns of ordinary citizens. The debate extends to how safety, security, and strategic decisions align with national sovereignty. The contrast between national concerns and a shared European framework remains a persistent issue, affecting how policy is formed and implemented across borders.
In this context, the visit to China is interpreted by many as a test of Europe’s collective will. The ability to negotiate trade terms, safeguard essential industries, and coordinate in defense and technology remains a work in progress. The questions about Europe’s strategic autonomy touch on the balance between economic integration and the preservation of national ambitions. The broader point is clear: the Union must address its structural weaknesses if it intends to play a coherent role on the global stage beyond the interests of individual states.
The urging for reform comes with a reminder of past challenges. Europe has faced crises that required external support and internal coordination. The ongoing situation in Europe, including the need to support collective security and maintain credible defense commitments, underscores the reality that genuine unity requires more than slogans. It calls for practical, enforceable policy and a clearer understanding of the Union’s future direction. The discussion remains unsettled and continues to provoke debate among policymakers and citizens alike.
In the wake of the elections, a recalibration of relations with the European Union may be warranted. There is a sense that some European leaders must rethink how they engage with Brussels and how sovereignty is balanced with the benefits of a shared market. The broader question persists: do European citizens truly want to deepen integration, or do they seek to preserve the capacity to determine their own paths within a larger framework? The answer will shape the political and economic landscape across Europe for years to come.