On 13 and 14 July, France put on a show of European strength. On the eve of the national holiday, in his last address to the army, Emmanuel Macron said that peace was the goal, that “we cherish liberty and law… we stand ready to fight to defend them,” always, and at the price of blood if it came to that. He had just finished saying that Europe was becoming a power, one resting on the states that compose it and respectful of their sovereign decisions. He was standing at the Hôtel de Brienne, speaking to French soldiers, invoking the blood already paid by French dead. He never fixed the political subject contained in “we.”
The same day, more than thirty governments of the Coalition of the Willing met around Volodymyr Zelensky at the Invalides, at a summit France co-chaired with Britain and Germany. The next morning their soldiers opened the largest parade in years down the Champs-Élysées, which the Élysée placed under a theme, the strategic awakening of Europe. The Élysée said the parade would illustrate three things, France’s rearmament, France’s strategic autonomy, and Europe’s strategic awakening.
If we read that slowly, it seems to concede something. France rearms. France is autonomous. Europe awakens. The first two belong to the grammar of statehood. The third describes something happening to a community of states. The awakening is real, and so is the rearmament. Europe is spending, and its publics have grasped the danger. But the two days taught more than they were meant to, and the lessons cut against the show.
The first lesson is that Macron’s sentence could be heard as two pledges, and only one of them has a single, legible decision chain behind it. He never fixed whether the “we” meant France or the Europeans he had just invoked. Read the “we” as France and the political subject is clear. To pledge blood requires two things, a community willing to spend lives for what it defends and an authority able to decide to spend them. France has both. Its constitutional order identifies where military commitment begins, how it proceeds and, at the nuclear threshold, the single office in which the final decision rests. The answer may still be no. What matters for deterrence is that an adversary knows who must answer.
Stay ahead of the geopolitical week.
MD Briefing delivers expert analysis across five global fronts — the Indo-Pacific, energy, geoeconomics, European security, and the Middle East — every Monday morning. Free.
Heard as Europe, the picture changes. The resolve is real but distributed. The machinery is real but divided, a coalition of more than thirty governments and an alliance of thirty-two, with plans, commands and forces already in place. Authority is everywhere in Europe. What is missing is a common decision chain through which those national commitments become one answer when support becomes war.
The ambiguity has a doctrine behind it. France has never mapped its vital interests, and Macron argues that a rigid guarantee would be unwise, lowering the nuclear threshold and reducing an adversary’s uncertainty in equal measure. But that ambiguity concerns where the line falls. It works only because there is no ambiguity at all about who draws it, and at Île Longue he said the chain of command was totally clear and the final decision lay with the President alone. The thirteenth of July blurred something else. It blurred who was pledging.
That is why the sentence carries a different weight under each reading. Read as France, it is a national pledge backed by a political community and an identifiable chain of command. Read as Europe, it becomes a warning directed in part at Moscow, that an attack will be met rather than absorbed, and that whoever comes to take something will pay for it in lives. That is deterrence by declaration. It binds no government by itself, and it holds for exactly as long as the adversary believes the many governments contained in the “we” will converge when the test arrives.
The second lesson is that France can convene Europe but cannot command it. Macron allowed the “we” to reach outward, and taken together his initiatives this year amount to an offer for France to stand in for the centre Europe lacks, the nation that gathers the coalitions, the guarantor that reassures the exposed, the power whose deterrent might be stretched to cover the continent. It is, in the old word, an offer to perform the work of Europe’s Leviathan without the covenant that would create one, France asking for no formal transfer of sovereignty, only to place its weight at the service of a common defence. But a Leviathan without a covenant is only a guarantor, and Europe has transferred no such authority to Paris.
Even a recognised hand would not settle everything. Washington supplied an accepted centre throughout the Cold War and France doubted it anyway, which is why de Gaulle built a French deterrent rather than rely entirely on an American one. The question Warsaw would ask of Paris is the question Paris asked of Washington. But Europe’s difficulty sits earlier than that. It has no common hand to doubt.
The instrument that could make France the guarantor of last resort is its nuclear deterrent. Two European states possess such instruments, but neither belongs to Europe. Britain has declared its deterrent to NATO’s defence since the sixties, tying it to the structure now in doubt. France assigns its deterrent to no alliance structure, and Macron preserves that independence, offering shelter while reserving the decision, in his own words no guarantee in the strict sense.
Without a European mandate, France gave what it could give, a stage, a parade and the borrowed grandeur of its national day, while the summit itself was co-chaired with London and Berlin. What it cannot do is give Europe a decision of its own. France convenes what it cannot command, and it does not convene alone.
The third lesson is that Europe’s autonomy is being imposed before it has been built. To Washington, the two days carried an answer. Europe intended to show that it was preparing to stand even if America would not. That answer had urgency behind it. At the NATO summit in Ankara, the American president said the United States could remove all of its soldiers from Europe, while complaining that his demand for Greenland had been rebuffed despite the cost of American protection against Russia. The Pentagon had already announced the withdrawal of five thousand troops from Germany, a review of the roughly eighty thousand still on the continent was under way, and he has never ruled out leaving the alliance altogether.
The same summit nevertheless reaffirmed an ironclad commitment to Article 5, while the allies pledged seventy billion euros for Ukraine this year and affirmed sovereign commitments to at least as much again next year. That is the harder condition to plan around. A guarantor that is leaving can be replaced. A guarantor that is leaving and staying at once cannot be replaced cleanly.
Europe is therefore being forced to prepare for autonomy while remaining inside the architecture it may have to replace. That is a poor moment to discover that it has no common decision chain of its own. Washington supplied troops, and it also supplied an address, the accepted centre around which forces, command and planning were arranged, and the place an adversary looked when it asked who would answer. Applause on the Champs-Élysées does not build one.
The fourth lesson is that a will scattered across thirty capitals is easy to discount unless its decisions have been bound together in advance. Moscow waved the gathering away as a coalition of warmongers deceiving itself, and whatever it privately believes, its preference is plain. A fragmented Europe without a Leviathan, or any institutional substitute for one, is the Europe it would rather face.
Moscow is reading deterrence correctly. War tests competing wills through force. Deterrence is the attempt to settle that contest before the test begins, and it works when an adversary can count the forces it would face and predict the decision that would bring them into use. Europe has arms an adversary can count, and it is adding more. What it cannot show is a common decision at the threshold of war, because a will that must be assembled among thirty governments in the hour of the test is one an adversary can wait out. The coalition is a coalition of the willing, which is to say of many wills, voluntary and revocable, and its name concedes the point before any analysis does.
Hamilton faced the same arithmetic in 1787. Under the Confederation, he wrote, the concurrence of thirteen distinct sovereign wills was needed to execute any measure of importance, and the great and radical vice was legislating for states rather than for the individuals of which they consist. The remedy was to create a government able to act directly on citizens and resources rather than continually requisitioning action from the states. The Union crossed that line long ago. Its law binds citizens directly, its court reaches into them, its money is in their pockets. It is Hamiltonian in trade and law and currency, and largely pre-Hamiltonian in war, the domain where it still legislates for states and waits for them to agree.
NATO supplied another solution without federalising its members, through integrated command, forces in place and a preponderant guarantor behind them. Those forces also act as a tripwire, pre-committing the opening consequences of aggression so that the response does not have to be invented from nothing. Europeans still field them on the eastern flank. What they have not built is a version that works if Washington holds back.
The coalition has begun that work. In Paris the co-chairs took stock of the operational planning behind the guarantees they would owe Ukraine after a ceasefire and promised that those guarantees would be politically and legally binding, but expressly within each participant’s own legal and constitutional arrangements. The promise is collective, and the authority to activate it remains national. The difficulty is there in one clause. Until the decisions are bound in advance, Europe pledges in a register the adversary can still discount.
The fifth lesson is that the threshold Europe has not crossed has already been crossed for Ukraine. Twenty-five Ukrainians followed the coalition contingents, marching apart from them, and theirs was the only pledge in that column already tested in this war. The parade promised that Europe would defend an order. Ukraine was already spending lives to prevent that order from being overturned.
Ukraine is fighting first for its own survival, and on its own account. But the outcome of its war will shape the security of the continent, and Europe in turn has become its arsenal and strategic depth. Europe can arm a belligerent whose sovereign decision to fight has already been taken without deciding whether its own forces will enter the war. The political decision remains Kyiv’s, and the blood-price remains Ukrainian.
Ukraine therefore has as one polity what the coalition cannot yet muster as thirty, a people whose willingness to defend itself has been tested, and a government able to commit the forces that do so. Ukraine did not choose to arrive there. Invasion hardened what Ukrainians were prepared to defend, and war made the chain of decision unmistakable. The rest of Europe has so far been spared that test. Its task is to make its own common decision legible before aggression forces the question upon it.
The last lesson is the one the others build to, and it concerns the awakening itself. The awakening is real, in will and in arms. It stops short of the thing that turns resolve into deterrence, an authority or an institutional arrangement agreed in advance, able to commit the forces Europe has gathered when the moment comes.
Europe woke as a plurality of sovereign states, with a common cause and no common command. Machiavelli watched an earlier plurality face the same asymmetry. The Italian cities had money and arms, but France and Spain had gathered their war-making under one hand. Italy was rich. Italy was not one.
The asymmetry has returned. Europe now faces three powers that have each solved the problem it has not. The United States federated its sovereignty, China centralised it, and Russia hollowed its federalism into a single vertical. By three different roads, each arrived at one hand on force and one foreign policy. Europe’s states took that road one by one, and France’s own hand is proof of it. What has never been built is a common European one.
The Union was made differently, and the refusal of a single strategic hand became part of the settlement that keeps its members from turning on one another. But the reluctance extends beyond surrendering sovereignty. Binding a decision in advance leaves sovereignty whole while spending some of its freedom, because a state that promises beforehand has less room to withhold when the moment comes. War is the domain in which European states guard that room most jealously. The same settlement that pacified Europe internally also keeps its authority unbound externally. Its pacifier is also its disabler.
What the two days show is an unfinished sociogenesis, common capacity accumulating before common authority. Before the summit, at the Quai d’Orsay, ten governments announced an anti-ballistic missile coalition, nine European states and Ukraine, aiming at common requirements, joint working groups, governance and a road map towards an initial capability, all within their respective constitutional arrangements. Separately, the Multinational Force for Ukraine was declared ready to act at Ukraine’s request after a credible cessation of hostilities and will exercise in the coming months to demonstrate that it can.
These are real. They are the instruments of common defence taking shape. But none settles how the national decisions behind them become one commitment when support becomes war. Capacity is accumulating ahead of the authority that would use it, which is what an unfinished political formation looks like from inside.
Settling how Europe decides would not require its plurality to dissolve, only to bind itself in advance. That is why the European pledge remains unbound now and need not remain so forever. If this accumulation eventually produces an authority or institutional mechanism able to decide when support becomes war, without reconstructing agreement in the moment, the awakening will acquire deterrent force, and one ought to want it to.
Until then, the fourteenth of July taught the plainest lesson of all. Europe is awake and acting, but it cannot decide as one at the point where support becomes war, and the most resolute European promise remains a covenant of the willing, which is to say one that no one is sovereign enough to sign.
