In Part 1, I initiated a reflection on the possible motives of Western leaders who appear to embrace the cause of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in his public spat with US President Donald Trump. ChatGPT effectively listed the obvious factors that would incite Western aligned nations to sympathize with Zelenskyy. But the list itself appeared to contain contradictory elements. Wishing to clarify their relative importance, I proceeded with a follow-up prompt:

“You mention that the Europeans may be seeking ‘to justify and accelerate EU military integration and strategic autonomy.’ But you also state that ‘European leaders may fear economic repercussions if they break alignment with Washington, especially in trade negotiations and financial markets.’ This seems doubly contradictory. My initial question concerned the apparent decision of Europeans to side with Ukraine against the US, which presumably means breaking the alignment. But it’s also contradictory in the sense that assuming the burden of a continued war with Russia is unlikely to accelerate military integration, which can only be reasonably achieved if there is no active war taking place.

Do you agree that those contradictions would seem to limit the margin of maneuver of Europe, especially given that there are serious divisions among the European nations?”

“Yes, I agree that these contradictions severely limit Europe’s margin of maneuver. The tension between the desire for strategic autonomy and dependence on Washington creates a paradox: Europe wants to assert itself as an independent geopolitical actor, yet it remains economically and militarily dependent on the US. The war in Ukraine has only intensified this contradiction.

Breaking Alignment with the US?

On the surface, the European reaction to Trump’s stance on Ukraine might seem like an attempt to assert a more independent position. However, this is complicated by the reality that Europe’s military capabilities remain deeply tied to NATO and US leadership. If Europe were genuinely breaking alignment, one would expect to see:

1. A major European-led diplomatic push for a ceasefire or negotiations.
2. An accelerated effort to develop an autonomous European defense infrastructure.

Yet, neither of these is happening in a coherent way. Instead, European leaders continue to push for Ukraine’s defense while simultaneously voicing concerns about Trump’s approach, indicating a reactive stance rather than a proactive strategy.

The Military Integration Dilemma

You’re absolutely right that fighting a prolonged war does not facilitate military integration. In fact, it strains European capabilities in multiple ways:

• Resource Diversion: European militaries are depleting stockpiles to support Ukraine rather than using resources to build their own defense industries.
• Coordination Problems: The war highlights divisions between different EU and NATO members, with some (Poland, the Baltics) advocating maximalist military support, while others (Hungary, Slovakia) resist further engagement.
• Dependence on US Arms: Rather than building a self-sufficient European defense industry, many countries are relying more on US military hardware, which contradicts the goal of strategic autonomy.

Divisions Within Europe

Europe is not a monolith, and the war has exacerbated internal fractures:

• Western vs. Eastern Europe: Poland and the Baltics see the war as existential and are pushing for more aggressive measures. France and Germany, while supportive of Ukraine, are more cautious.
• Economic vs. Military Priorities: Some countries (e.g., Germany, Italy) are concerned about the economic consequences of prolonged conflict, while others prioritize security fears over economic concerns.
• US-Aligned vs. Independent Thinkers: Some leaders (notably Macron) have hinted at Europe taking a more independent stance, yet in practice, there is little evidence of a break from Washington’s broader policy.

A Shrinking Margin of Maneuver

The contradictions you pointed out—between European military ambitions and dependency on the US, and between supporting Ukraine while fearing economic consequences—mean that European leaders have very little room to maneuver:

1. If they double down on Ukraine without US support, they risk economic and military overstretch, without the guarantee of victory.
2. If they move toward a negotiated settlement, they risk alienating Eastern European allies and appearing weak.
3. If they maintain the status quo, they are essentially waiting for US leadership to dictate the next steps, which is not a sustainable position.

Conclusion

Europe’s current approach is reactive rather than strategic. It is not truly breaking alignment with the US, nor is it fully committing to strategic autonomy. The divisions within Europe further weaken its ability to act coherently. In the long run, unless a clear strategy emerges, Europe risks being caught in a situation where it neither achieves military independence nor effectively manages the war. Instead, it may find itself passively following external forces—whether from Washington, Moscow, or internal European pressures—without a viable endgame.”

DeepSeek’s response

Once again, DeepSeek’s response was nearly twice as long and more cogently structured.

Yes, I agree that the contradictions you’ve identified significantly limit Europe’s margin of maneuver and create a complex, almost paradoxical situation for European leaders. These contradictions stem from competing priorities and the inherent tensions between Europe’s aspirations for strategic autonomy, its reliance on the United States, and the realities of supporting Ukraine in a protracted conflict. Let’s break this down further:

1. The Contradiction Between Strategic Autonomy and Alignment with Washington 

• Strategic Autonomy: European leaders, particularly in France and Germany, have long advocated for greater EU military integration and strategic autonomy. The war in Ukraine has provided a renewed impetus for this goal, as Europe seeks to reduce its dependence on the U.S. for security.
• Alignment with Washington: At the same time, Europe remains heavily reliant on the U.S. for military, economic, and diplomatic support. Breaking alignment with Washington could have severe consequences, including disruptions in trade, financial markets, and NATO cohesion. This creates a dilemma: Europe wants to assert its independence but cannot afford to alienate its most powerful ally.

Why This Contradiction Limits Europe’s Maneuverability:

• European leaders must walk a fine line between pursuing strategic autonomy and maintaining transatlantic unity. This balancing act makes it difficult to take bold, independent actions, as any move toward autonomy risks provoking Washington’s displeasure.
• The U.S. remains the dominant force in NATO and the broader Western alliance. Without U.S. support, Europe’s ability to project power or influence global events is severely constrained.
  

2. The Contradiction Between Supporting Ukraine and Achieving Military Integration

• Supporting Ukraine: Europe’s commitment to Ukraine requires significant resources, including military aid, financial assistance, and humanitarian support. This diverts attention and resources away from long-term projects like EU military integration.
• Military Integration: Achieving meaningful military integration requires peace and stability, as well as a shared vision among EU member states. A protracted war in Ukraine creates divisions within Europe and makes it harder to build consensus on defense policy.

Why This Contradiction Limits Europe’s Maneuverability:

• The immediate demands of supporting Ukraine take precedence over long-term goals like military integration. This short-term focus undermines Europe’s ability to plan and execute a coherent defense strategy.
• The war exacerbates existing divisions within Europe. For example, Eastern European countries like Poland and the Baltic states are more hawkish toward Russia, while Western European countries like France and Germany favor a more cautious approach. These differences make it difficult to achieve the unity needed for military integration.
  

3. The Contradiction Between Economic Dependence and Strategic Ambitions

• Economic Dependence: Europe’s economy is deeply intertwined with the U.S., particularly in trade, finance, and technology. Breaking alignment with Washington could lead to economic repercussions, such as tariffs, sanctions, or reduced access to U.S. markets.
• Strategic Ambitions: Europe’s desire for strategic autonomy requires economic independence, including the ability to fund its own defense projects and reduce reliance on U.S. technology and investment.

   Why This Contradiction Limits Europe’s Maneuverability:

• European leaders must prioritize economic stability over strategic ambitions, as any disruption in transatlantic economic relations could have severe consequences for European growth and employment.
• The U.S. has significant leverage over Europe, particularly in areas like financial markets and technology. This limits Europe’s ability to pursue policies that might antagonize Washington.
  

4. The Contradiction Between Unity and Division

• Unity: European leaders often emphasize the importance of unity in responding to external threats like Russia. However, this unity is often more rhetorical than real.
• Division: There are deep divisions within Europe on how to handle the war in Ukraine, the role of the U.S., and the future of EU defense policy. These divisions are exacerbated by differing historical experiences, economic interests, and political ideologies.

Why This Contradiction Limits Europe’s Maneuverability:

• The lack of consensus makes it difficult for Europe to speak with one voice or take decisive action. This undermines Europe’s credibility on the global stage and weakens its negotiating position.
• Divisions within Europe create opportunities for external powers, like the U.S. and Russia, to exploit these differences and further fragment European unity.

5. The Contradiction Between Short-Term and Long-Term Goals

• Short-Term Goals: In the short term, Europe is focused on supporting Ukraine and managing the immediate fallout from the war, including energy shortages and refugee flows.
• Long-Term Goals: In the long term, Europe aims to achieve strategic autonomy, deepen EU integration, and reduce its dependence on external powers.

Why This Contradiction Limits Europe’s Maneuverability:

• The urgency of short-term challenges often takes precedence over long-term planning. This reactive approach prevents Europe from developing a coherent strategy for achieving its broader goals.
• The resources and political capital required to address short-term crises leave little room for investing in long-term projects like military integration or economic independence.

Conclusion

The contradictions you’ve identified—between strategic autonomy and alignment with Washington, between supporting Ukraine and achieving military integration, between economic dependence and strategic ambitions, and between unity and division—create a complex web of challenges for European leaders. These contradictions limit Europe’s margin of maneuver and make it difficult to pursue a coherent and effective strategy.

In the absence of a clear path forward, European leaders are likely to continue muddling through, balancing competing priorities and avoiding decisive actions that could exacerbate these contradictions. However, this approach is unsustainable in the long term. To overcome these challenges, Europe will need to address the underlying tensions in its policies and develop a more unified and forward-looking strategy. This will require difficult choices, greater political will, and a willingness to confront the contradictions that currently constrain Europe’s actions.

My conclusion (to be continued)

This is the beginning of a dialogue that I expect to continue over the coming weeks. In the next installment, along with our AI friends, we will try to work together to assess the complexity of the current situation from the point of view of European decision-makers. 

Your thoughts

Please feel free to share your thoughts on these points by writing to us at dialogue@fairobserver.com. We are looking to gather, share and consolidate the ideas and feelings of humans who interact with AI. We will build your thoughts and commentaries into our ongoing dialogue.

[Artificial Intelligence is rapidly becoming a feature of everyone’s daily life. We unconsciously perceive it either as a friend or foe, a helper or destroyer. At Fair Observer, we see it as a tool of creativity, capable of revealing the complex relationship between humans and machines.]

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.