On the eve of the U.S. presidential election, François Heisbourg, special advisor at the Foundation for Strategic Research, France’s main center of international security and defense expertise, discusses the consequences of America’s gradual withdrawal from the international stage.
La Croix: As the U.S. presidential election approaches, one country is holding its breath: Ukraine. How do you analyze Washington’s stance on this issue?
François Heisbourg: Since the beginning of this crisis, the Americans have taken over from (Russian President) Vladimir Putin in drawing red lines. As a result, the Russians have taken advantage and escalated, particularly with nuclear threats. However, fundamentally, there hasn’t been a major shift in Russian doctrine: since the fall of the USSR, Moscow has followed a logic of classical deterrence, the weak against the strong, abandoning the “no first use” policy. Simply put: nuclear weapons can be a response to non-nuclear threats. This is also the case for NATO’s doctrine.
On the American side, the two people shaping U.S. policy on this issue are (U.S. President) Joe Biden and his National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan. The latter has no personal experience of the Cold War, unlike Biden, who was shaped by that era.
Unfortunately, Biden is losing his memory and has forgotten to incorporate the lessons of the Cold War. Beyond this personal aspect, the United States is fundamentally tired of carrying the burden of empire.
Is this a recent development?
It began under (former U.S. President) Barack Obama. In Libya, in 2011, even though the U.S. had supported the UN resolution authorizing intervention, the president pulled the U.S. from the front line and left the Europeans to continue the operation through NATO. That same year, in a speech in Canberra, Obama spoke of the “pivot to Asia.” From then on, America’s priority has been the Asia-Pacific region. Finally, in 2013, the U.S. decided not to intervene in Syria.
The second stage came during the 2020 presidential election. Both candidates—Trump and Biden—promised to end the forever wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We often emphasize the differences between Republican and Democratic candidates, but there are also strong elements of continuity. Trump negotiated with the Taliban, but it was Biden who followed through and withdrew from Afghanistan.
Economically, whether Republican or Democrat, America has become protectionist.
I would add a third element of continuity: the priority given to the region now called the Indo-Pacific. The goal is to counter China’s rising power. There is a total consensus on this point within American society, which is otherwise divided on almost everything else.
Would a possible victory for Kamala Harris on November 5 be more reassuring for Europeans from a geopolitical standpoint?
Europe would be wrong to breathe a sigh of relief and return to its strategic routines. The past seventy years are over. It’s finished! This is no longer the same world. And when we see the disarray among Europeans, there is reason to be worried. The specter haunting Europe is: the Russians are returning, and the Americans are leaving.
It’s clear that the U.S. won’t be able to maintain its military presence and effort in Europe at current levels. The U.S. could very well become a “sleeping partner” of NATO. There’s no need to leave the Alliance to cease being its leader and no longer uphold the security umbrella of Article 5 (1).
The solution, in this case, would be to “Europeanize” NATO: the Alliance’s assets would become predominantly European. The intervention in Libya is a good example: it showed that NATO can be used for military operations without direct inspiration from the U.S.
What is your view on the American posture in the Middle East?
As I said earlier, the U.S. position since Obama has been to avoid opening new military fronts and avoid engagement in another forever war. But that doesn’t mean the U.S. is abandoning Israel. The Middle East has become a domestic political issue in the U.S. In Michigan, a swing state, the outcome could hinge on a number of votes smaller than the number of Arab-American voters in the state.
More broadly, the U.S. is clearly in a cycle of withdrawal. Americans are deeply divided among themselves. In this regard, in the upcoming November 5 election, there are three candidates: Donald Trump, Kamala Harris, and chaos—meaning an election where the result wouldn’t be accepted by one of the protagonists. Americans’ mistrust of institutions, on all sides, has reached unprecedented levels. The United States has changed, and we’d be mistaken to assume “it will pass.”
