In his essay “Europe Confronting Predators,” geopolitical expert François Heisbourg argues for a more aggressive EU stance against Russia, America, and China.
François Heisbourg, a special advisor at the Foundation for Strategic Research, is one of the top analysts of the new global configuration. In his essay “The Time of Predators” (Odile Jacob edition), published in 2020 before the Covid pandemic, he highlighted the ferocity with which Moscow, Washington, and Beijing intend to carve up the world to the detriment of a European Union bogged down in denial and divisions.
With “A World Without America” and “The Suicide of America,” published in 2024 and 2025 respectively by the same publisher, he analyzed the strategic consequences of the end of the American “unipolar” moment.
Now, in his new essay, “Europe Facing Predators, Forging the New Power” (Odile Jacob edition), he aims to show the way for Europe to get back into the race against aggressive empires. According to him, Europe has all the ingredients to meet the triple challenge of Russia, China, and America, but it will need to move past self-flagellation and adopt a new logic. One of “relentless defense of our interests.”
The Point: Facing predators like Russia, China, and America, you write that “Europe is stronger than it thinks, but it will need to learn brutality.” What do you mean by that?
François Heisbourg: We know about Russia’s cruelty since the war in Ukraine four years ago. We are aware of China’s violence in trade matters. We have seen America’s brutality during the Greenland episode. When facing predators, everything is based on a power balance logic. So we also have to learn to be brutal, without compromising our values, especially respect for international law. To dissuade the United States from attacking a NATO member country’s territory like Denmark, we deployed troops to Greenland. And it worked.
To hear you, our continent must also avoid falling into self-flagellation, as unfortunately it has become accustomed to.
Predators play on this. That was J.D. Vance’s speech in Munich. That’s how the Russians see us, as a bunch of soft people needing a kick in the rear end. These speeches have had an impact on us. However, we are not as weak as it may seem! It is often said, for example, that we have become an open sky nursing home.
But when comparing European demographics to those of China or Russia, it is an oasis of fertility. And Americans are no better: their birth rate is exactly the same as the French. It is also said that our public finances are in bad shape. That’s true, particularly in the case of France. But the public finances of the United States, Russia, or China are not shining either. “When I look at myself, I despair, when I compare myself, I console myself.” This aphorism attributed to Talleyrand can apply to Europe.
During a recent trip to China, a high-level interlocutor told us the following: “Europe doesn’t produce anything we need and don’t have, except maybe ASML machines necessary for advanced semiconductor manufacturing, which we are catching up on.” How can we rebuild a power balance under these conditions?
Your interlocutor claims that China knows how to do everything. However, that’s not true. Not being able to build machines identical to those of ASML is not insignificant. It’s true that Europe has not yet managed to create “hyperscalers” of artificial intelligence (AI) like the United States and China. But just because the UK invented the railway doesn’t mean other countries couldn’t seize the opportunity.
European companies already excel in applying AI at the highest level. For example, the Publicis group is the world champion in integrating AI into advertising solutions. Wars are always won in minds, sometimes even before they begin. Europeans believe they have already lost, when in fact they have not.
The diagnoses are established, the funding is available, but we are not acting, or not quickly enough.
Take the financial lever, for example. Europeans invest 300 billion euros a year in the United States. If that money leaves, America will suffer. This is a power balance element. We have others, and it’s up to us to capitalize on them. That being said, it would be easier to grow our companies if we could successfully implement the financial and banking single markets.
On these topics, as well as on other key issues, such as the mass production of drones, robotics, military decision-making systems, or mini-satellite constellations, the EU is moving very slowly…
“We know what needs to be done, but we don’t know what it takes to be popular if we do it.” Said former European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker in a rare moment of lucidity. This is the European malaise. The diagnoses are established, the funding is available, but we are not acting, or not quickly enough.
How do we explain this torpor? And, more importantly, how do we get out of it?
Even if the EU has been quick to respond to major challenges like Covid, the war in Ukraine, or the Greenland crisis, its governance is structurally slow. The good news, however, is that it now works more with intergovernmental coalitions.
The increase in military spending from 40 to 100 billion euros per year in Germany could accelerate the financial unification of the continent because this money will have to be spent intelligently and therefore in European solutions.
But aren’t the Germans still sourcing from Americans?
They have long bought American products in exchange for a defense guarantee. However, they have realized that this guarantee no longer exists. Therefore, they have no reason not to buy European. France, which has argued for years that the American security guarantee is not lasting, should take advantage of this to boost its military industry to benefit from the situation. But, for now, our defense industrial champions remain hindered by the bureaucracy.
When we listen to the debates in France a year before the 2027 presidential election, there is hardly any talk of productivity gains, artificial intelligence, or strategic revival. Do the French really want to fight?
When I travel the country to talk about my books, I notice that the French are anxious about our strategic situation. They are more attentive to these issues than one might think. And that reassures me. The 2027 election will partly be decided by the competence of the candidates to manage the country in a context where the world has never been so dangerous. Look at the audiences of news channels: currently, those that excel are the ones covering international topics, including the war in Iran. However, the political class worries me. There is a profound disconnect between the trivial debates in the National Assembly, such as the one about the opening of florists and bakeries on May 1, and the expectations of the population.
The predators you mention in your book know perfectly well how to exploit the divisions among the 27 countries that make up the EU. For example, Russia is counting on an RN victory in France next year for a friendly party to lead the second largest economy on the continent.
European far-right movements are currently on edge, as they have aligned themselves with Putin and Trump. However, these two figures are becoming less popular. The RN will struggle to convince that our sovereignty will be better assured by aligning with Moscow or Washington.
What the EU brings to each of its member states is more important than what each predator can offer. This was demonstrated by Viktor Orbán’s defeat in Hungary. The Russians did everything they could to help him, and so did the Americans, but the Hungarians understood that true support comes from Brussels.
For Europeans, the main test of sovereignty remains the war in Ukraine, which will equal the duration of the First World War on June 10. Are we truly up to this challenge?
Four years after the invasion began, Russia has not achieved any of its war objectives. Trump challenged us to replace America in Ukraine. We will succeed. It’s just a matter of time. There was a simple solution to compensate for the American withdrawal: mobilize the frozen Russian assets in Europe. For now, this solution has been blocked in the quagmire around Mercosur. But the issue will surely resurface. The answer lies in Brussels, at Euroclear, so it is within reach.
Trump and Putin are not allies, but they are accomplices.
“The Kremlin is seen as an asset by the United States, while Europe is in the ‘liability’ column,” you observe. Is Donald Trump Moscow’s ally?
We need to be careful with words. An ally is someone with whom we share a common defense fate. Trump and Putin are not allies, but they are accomplices; they walk hand in hand.
In the Iran war, it was very striking to see that Trump forgave in advance everything Putin could do to help Tehran, including providing intelligence and drones made in Russia. When his administration alerted him to the issue, the US president first said he was not aware, then told his services that it didn’t matter. It’s quite surprising! And when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky offered him expertise in anti-drone defense, as he had proposed to Gulf countries, to help counter Iranian drones, Trump flatly refused.
I don’t know if he is controlled by Putin, and I think speculating on this subject is unnecessary, but it seems that Trump admires Putin in a way. Perhaps because he envies his unlimited power.
According to you, “NATO is listed as a strategic ‘masterpiece in danger.'” Should we stay in it while the American administration keeps weakening it?
What is our interest? Europeans must systematically question themselves on this for all international issues. For example, Pedro Sanchez advocates ending the free trade agreement with Israel. But is this in our interest? No. Do we want to push Israel further into the arms of Washington? And this is one of the trade agreements where we show a surplus. The same logic applies to NATO. Is it in our interest to stay in it? Yes. If the Americans withdraw officers from the chain of command, we can easily replace them. Europeanizing NATO is the best thing that can happen to it.
However, there is another scenario: one in which the United States remains in NATO and triggers a major crisis.
Yes, the likelihood of this scenario is high. With Greenland, we were close to an explosion in NATO. Therefore, we must prepare to fill all the voids left by the Americans on our own. Germany is preparing for this. France too, especially with the new advanced nuclear deterrence logic announced by President Macron during the Long Island speech.
It should be noted that RN representatives did not criticize this speech, as they know that the French hold on to nuclear deterrence. Extreme parties will have to decide whether they want to defend France’s sovereignty or if they prefer to hitch it to Putin and Trump’s wagon.
What interim assessment can be drawn from the Iran war?
This war is mysterious. What on earth is Donald Trump doing in this mess? His objectives are not clear. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz is a scenario that all strategists in the world, without exception, had foreseen since the late 1970s. And yet, it seems he was caught off guard! Under these conditions, making predictions seems difficult. However, what can be said is that the Iranian regime is not willing to back down. They have just realized how profitable controlling the Strait of Hormuz can be. Starting from the announced $2 million tax per ship, that adds up to $73 billion in annual revenues. Even if Tehran will have to share this windfall with Oman, it will still make considerable sums for the regime. So why give it up?
How can Trump get out of this conflict on top?
The first exit scenario is a change of regime in Tehran. But we don’t know when or in whose favor. And the paradox is that this doesn’t seem feasible in wartime. So I fear this is a false hope.
The second scenario is lifting the American blockade in exchange for a nuclear agreement that may not necessarily include the Strait of Hormuz issue. The only thing we are sure of is that Trump is eager to end this. He does not want to lead his party in the November midterm elections without ending this war, as Americans do not want another Vietnam. So he might abandon the issue without a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
Last year, when we saw you for your previous book (“The Suicide of America,” Odile Jacob edition), you had told us: “A superpower led by a president who says anything, it’s quite extraordinary!” Since then, things have not improved. What strategy should Europeans adopt in the face of this?
Europeans should focus not on what Trump says but on their own interests alone. We should not fear upsetting the predators. Therefore, we must stop trying to appease the American president and instead create a balance of power. And we have everything to succeed in this. Europe is not doomed to behave like a guilty little girl waiting to be scolded in Ursula von der Leyen’s Turnberry golf course!
If Europe strengthens itself militarily, economically, and diplomatically, it will be able to meet the challenge posed by Trump, Putin, and Xi. Especially by getting closer to powers facing the same challenges as us, like India, Canada, or Japan. This can be achieved if we stop giving lessons.
