Chroniques européennes
Renaud Denuit, the author of the excellent editorial pieces published by Bulletin Quotidien d’Agence Europe, has just brought out a three-volume set of articles published in various organs, particularly the Revue générale (a French-language Belgian publication) and the Beacons section of the BQE, plus a few transcripts from the author’s conference addresses. All quotations are translated by us.
The first volume of these Chroniques européennes, entitled Contre la médiocrité politique, contains texts published between 2002 and May 2019. It starts with a philosophical reflection and ends with a symbolic reference to the European anthem. It includes articles dealing with the topics of culture, migration, citizenship, research, and much more. However, Renaud explains, “it is principally the functioning of the institutions and their possible [and necessary] democratisation that are the overarching theme, justifying the title of the volume”. Under the title Les sursauts de l’Union, the second volume is a compilation of texts published between May 2019 and October 2021. It is principally given over to the EU’s responses to crises and new challenges, such as Brexit, acts of defiance of the rule of law and violations of it, climate change and the decline of biodiversity, the pandemic and the spread of Euroscepticism, amongst other things. Entre révolte et espoir concludes this trilogy, covering the period from November 2021 to December 2023, with articles on the war in Ukraine, potential further enlargement, defence and the institutional architecture, with a proposal to scale down the European Commission, and Social Europe.
This adds up to a total of 851 pages that cannot be summarised. We have decided instead to focus on three texts, chosen completely subjectively, in the hope that they will pique the attention of readers of this column. Historians, amateur and professional alike, will find much food for thought here, a bit like the Chronicles of mediaeval times. Others will be able to cherry-pick articles to read, depending on their specific interests. And for many, students or “ordinary” citizens who see the European institutions and politics as inaccessible, the texts will serve as a gateway, as Renaud intends them to be instructive.
Guérir l’Union européenne par la démocratie (How democracy can heal the European Union) is an article published in the Revue générale March 2014 by Renaud and his son François. In it, the pair discuss four completely counter-productive examples of the top-down structure of the EU, starting with the major enlargement (an extra 12 countries between 2004 and 2007), which was not presented to the people of the Europe of Fifteen as “an end goal they could see themselves reflected in or in which they could, in one way or another, get involved”. “Not only were they not consulted, but neither the European nor the national leaders at the time did anything to convince them of the benefits of the operation. This is why, even though the enlargement was carried out on a geopolitical, even ethical, basis, the general Western European popular conscience has still not taken ownership of it, they stress.
“The Lisbon Strategy of 2000, which was supposed to make the EU into a ‘Europe of Knowledge’ and the most competitive zone in the world, is another counter-example”, Renaud and François Denuit go on to argue. “True, it set a deadline (2010), but it had no binding legal framework. It got watered down in bureaucratic cooperation mechanisms. The objective itself evaded the understanding of many and it was a matter of doubt whether it even had a collective dimension, as the social plank came out as the poor relation”, they state euphemistically and far too generously!
Another observation they make is that “the institutional innovations achieved since the Treaty of Nice (2001) (…) are by no means negligible. Even so, they largely flew over the heads of the citizens and what’s more, in some cases have been seen as counter-productive; they have done nothing to pick apart the argument of the democratic deficit of the Union”.
“Finally, the management of the Eurozone crisis was so pitiful that there is no point devoting many lines to it. Taken point by point, it is almost the polar opposite of the recipe for success that was applied: no perspective given to the citizens, it was permanently being patched up, it was an addition to the national agendas rather than the subject of a common timetable, lamentable communication, authoritarian methodology, a highly focused treaty but one that was politically insufficient, drawn up using the top-down method – precisely the opposite of the one used by the Convention 10 years earlier. Caught up in the headlong rush, we went backwards, in terms of modernity and democracy”, the authors go on to note, arguing this should be taken as a wake-up call, a sursaut in French, giving this volume its title. With two “simple [proposals] that everybody can understand, that are revolutionary in some ways yet achievable if backed by the necessary political will, a timetable for implementation and a legally binding framework”, namely: a new baseline universal and non-means-tested income for all citizens of the European Union – in other words, the degree of social democracy with the greatest potential to get people behind the EU – and the election of an EU President by direct universal suffrage for European citizens, which must necessarily be accompanied by a streamlining of the institutional system of the EU, which is the only way to put flesh on the bones of European democracy.
La place de l’action culturelle dans la construction européenne is the transcript of a speech given by Renaud Denuit at a conference of the Catholic University of Lyon on 15 November 2021. In it, he argues that “cultural action started with the Council of Europe”. “It is to the Council of Europe that we owe the cultural convention of 1954, followed by other conventions, the creation of a fund for cinema baptised Eurimages and a European Audiovisual Observatory, initiatives in support of heritage, the creation of a network for the professionalisation of the management of cultural activities, the adoption of a European flag and anthem, actions in favour of intercultural dialogue, and the list goes on. The scantness of the budgetary resources, the lack of any binding nature for the conventions and priorities other than culture have limited the output of this organisation, which has shown itself to be an enthusiastic pioneer”, he writes. But it was not until 1989 and the “Television Without Borders” directive that the Community took specific action to invest in the field of culture, with its first quotas: at least 50% of broadcasting time to be given over to European works and at least 10% of satellite time or scheduling budget reserved for independent producers. 1990 saw the launch of the MEDIA programme, with a budget of 200 million ecus. Another 10 years would elapse before the appearance of the Culture 2000 programme, which would be renamed Creative Europe in 2013. And yet culture is still the poor relation, fed on survival rations: in the current multi-annual financial framework, “with an annual 340 million euros out of the general EU budget of 153 billion (not including the post-Covid 19 recovery plan), the annual envelope of the current Creative Europe programme is barely more than 0.2% of the overall budget”.
Let us conclude this overview with an article published in the fourth quarter of 2023 in the review Apropos (liaison newsletter of the Belgian section of the Association internationale des Anciens de l’Union européenne). In it, Renaud takes us back in time to 1930 and Alexis Leger, who, under the pen name Saint-John Perse, wrote the Mémorandum sur l’organisation d’un régime d’union fédérale européenne that was presented by Aristide Briand to the general meeting of the League of Nations in Geneva on 17 May 1930. It was not a huge success. The text, which is divided into four sections, starts with the “need for a pact, general in nature, as elementary as it might be, to affirm the principle of the European moral union and solemnly to enshrine the fact of the solidarity instituted between European States”. “In conclusion, the memorandum stressed the need to ‘seek a simple federal link to be instituted between European governments’, which would allow ‘the organisation of European peace and the rational management of the life forces of Europe’. The author adds a peroration: ‘Uniting to live and prosper: that is the absolute necessity now facing the nations of Europe’. Unfortunately, the project was not followed up, but its words still echo with uncanny relevance today”, Renaud quite accurately observes. (Olivier Jehin)
Renaud Denuit. Contre la médiocrité politique (Chroniques européennes, volume 1). ISBN: 978-2-3365-4111-2. 275 pages. €28,00; Les sursauts de l’Union (Chroniques européennes, volume 2). ISBN: 978-2-3365-4114-3. 284 pages. €29,00; Entre révolte et espoir (Chroniques européennes, volume 3). ISBN: 978-2-3365-4117-4. 292 pages. €30,00. All three volumes are published by Harmattan, in the « Questionner l’Europe » election and all are available in French only.
Low Trust
In this Chaillot Paper, the European Union Institute for Security Studies charts the deterioration of the transatlantic relationship since the investiture of Donald Trump on 20 January 2025, and puts forward a number of ideas to navigate the troubled waters of a Presidency characterised by volatile and unpredictable behaviour.
According to a study of the Pew Research Center from June 2025, the perception of the general public of the United States has worsened considerably. In the EU, this has fallen from 86% favourable opinions to 55% in Poland, from 47 to 19% in Sweden, from 49 to 29% in the Netherlands, 31% in Spain, 33% in Germany; only the Hungarians are more enthusiastic about the second term in office of Donald Trump, with 60% favourable opinions in 2025, up from 52% in 2024. The same trends can be seen elsewhere in the world, with the sharpest drops in Mexico, 29% in favour compared to 61% in 2024, and Canada, 34% in 2025, compared to 54% in 2024.
“The upcoming National Defense Strategy [of the United States] will prioritise ‘defense of the US homeland, including America’s skies and borders, and deterring China in the Indo-Pacific’. Internal guidance released in March reportedly indicates that the US is unlikely to direct substantial reinforcements to Europe in the event of a Russian attack”, Luigi Scazzieri notes. He goes on to observe that “first, there is a fear that America will reduce its troop presence in Europe, making large or uncoordinated cuts. Europeans will struggle to make up for large-scale rapid reductions, as American forces form the backbone of NATO and European militaries lack many key capabilities, such as intelligence and command and control assets. Second, Europeans worry that Trump’s rhetorical ambiguity on NATO and confrontational policies towards allies could undermine confidence in America’s extended nuclear deterrence, even though US officials have not explicitly questioned the nuclear guaranty. Cuts in US conventional forces in Europe, combined with growing doubts about the credibility of the nuclear umbrella, could open a window of opportunity for Moscow to test Europe’s defences. Third, many Europeans worry about their dependence on American military equipment and intelligence”.
The proportion of weapons imported from the US currently sits at around 50% of acquisitions, the author goes on to point out, stressing that the road towards increased European procurement is still a long one.
Ondrej Ditrych takes up the theme of Ukraine. After the manifest failure of the meeting in Anchorage between Trump and Putin, the Ukrainian President, with the support of NATO’s PURL initiative and the agreement of the Europeans to buy arms from the United States, succeeded in securing a new flow of matériel from the US, but “doubts persist about US industrial capacities and hence the timing of the deliveries”, he notes. “Moreover, new policy reversals by Trump always remain a possibility – supported by ‘restrainers’ eager to prioritise stockpiling weapons at home, particularly as China continues to impose constraints on US military producers’ supply of critical materials”, Ditrych stresses. These restrictions obviously also apply to the Europeans. The author goes on to point out that access to the critical materials under Ukrainian soil could be a further bone of contention between the two sides of the Atlantic in the future.
Among the options suggested by the author to resolve the situation, he stresses the need for the member states that are in the coalition of the willing to anticipate solutions (increasing their own production and doubling down on the Danish model to support weapons production in Ukraine) in the event that the supply of American weapons should dry up. The author also proposes a ‘Marshall Plan 2.0’ for the reconstruction of Ukraine, which could be launched by the European Union, with the United States invited to come on board.
Concerning China, “the EU should focus on its own interests rather than tailoring its China policy to please Trump, as some observers are suggesting, while seeking to show the US that sectoral cooperation can benefit both sides in areas such as addressing Chinese overcapacity, safeguarding economic security, and power projection in Eurasia. At the same time, it must be prepared to defend its interests vis-à-vis Beijing independently, working with like-minded partners around the world and in Congress”, explains Tim Rühlig.
It is unquestionably along the front of the fight against disinformation and manipulation that the new American administration has created an unbridgeable gulf. Leonardo De Agostini discusses the closure of all European agencies or their offices tasked with this fight, with Russia stepping up its disinformation campaigns in the EU and surrounding area. Against this backdrop, he believes the European Union should: (1) continue, wherever possible, to seek engagement with the United States, for instance on the subject of Chinese activities; (2) build and lead coalitions with the United Kingdom; (3) fill the gap left by the reduction of European aid in the eastern neighbourhood and the Balkans and, as proposed by the High Representative, step in and provide long-term funding to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty; (4) proactively occupy the international media space, particularly the digital space, to offset the Russian and Chinese influence.
This Chaillot Paper features a great many more contributions, such as an analysis by Clothilde Bômont of the transatlantic divisions over tech, Caspar Hobhouse’s deep dive into climate policy, and an article by Rossella Marangio on the transactional American policy in Africa. (OJ)
Giuseppe Spatafora, Steven Everts, Alice Eckman (edited by). Low Trust – Navigating transatlantic relations under Trump 2.0. European Union Institute of Security Studies (EUISS). Chaillot Paper 187, October 2025. ISBN: 978-9-2946-2432-1. 92 pages. This report can be downloaded free of charge from the website of the Institute at https://aeur.eu/f/J20