Resit Kemal As, Editor-in-Chief – World Of Global
Tensions within NATO are no longer confined to technical disagreements whispered behind closed doors. The strategic friction between France and the United States exposes a far deeper question about the alliance itself: Is NATO still a collective security framework, or has it evolved into a discipline mechanism anchored primarily in American leadership?
France’s recent posture has made it the most vocal European actor daring to ask this question aloud. As a result, Paris is increasingly portrayed in Washington as a “difficult ally”—and by some circles, even as NATO’s Trojan horse.
What Is France Doing, and Why Is Washington Uneasy?
France’s challenge is not military in nature; it is strategic. President Macron’s emphasis on “European strategic autonomy” directly unsettles the hierarchical order within NATO that the United States has long taken for granted. Paris is uncomfortable with NATO functioning not merely as a defense alliance, but as a political steering mechanism.
Washington, however, views the matter far more bluntly:
European security is unsustainable without the United States.
And once this premise is openly questioned, NATO’s deterrence itself begins to erode.
France’s efforts to promote its own defense industry, its cautious distance from U.S. influence in Africa, and its reluctance to fully sever channels with Russia are interpreted in Washington not as independence—but as a loss of control.
What Does the “Trojan Horse” Label Really Mean?
The Trojan horse accusation rests on the idea that France seeks to weaken NATO from within. Yet the reality is more unsettling:
France does not aim to dismantle NATO; it seeks to reshape a U.S.-centric NATO.
This forces other European states into an uncomfortable choice:
•Remain under the American security umbrella and accept political dependency
•Or pursue a sovereign European defense architecture—with all its financial and strategic costs
Most European capitals quietly avoid this dilemma. Strategic autonomy is expensive; reliance on the United States is comfortable.
How This Tension Could Reshape Europe
If this fracture deepens, Europe faces three likely consequences:
1. A multi-speed NATO:
Some members will align closely with Washington as loyal allies, while others gravitate toward a Franco-German axis seeking autonomy. In moments of crisis, this divergence could paralyze decision-making.
2. Fragmentation of European security:
As shared threat perceptions erode, Europe becomes more predictable—and more vulnerable—to Russia, China, and regional powers alike.
3. Erosion of transatlantic trust:
Washington will continue to view Europe as a partner unwilling to shoulder sufficient responsibility, while European publics increasingly see the U.S. as an ally that entangles them in its own conflicts.
This mutual suspicion undermines NATO’s political cohesion more than its military capacity.
The Real Question: Is France the Problem—or Is Europe Avoiding a Decision?
Perhaps the issue is not France acting as a Trojan horse, but Europe refusing to look in the mirror. The concerns voiced by Paris are quietly shared across many European capitals—yet few are willing to articulate them openly in Washington’s presence.
So France becomes the target, while the ideas themselves remain unchallenged.
Conclusion: NATO Stands, but Its Strategic Soul Is in Crisis
NATO may remain militarily powerful, but its sense of strategic unity is fading. The France–U.S. tension is merely the visible symptom of a deeper structural rift: Europe has yet to decide what it wants to be.
A continent secure yet dependent under American protection?
Or an autonomous actor willing to pay the price of sovereignty?
Until that question is answered, every internal NATO crisis will leave Europe more exposed—and more divided.
And perhaps the true Trojan horse is not France at all, but Europe’s own strategic indecision.