Technological Autonomy: A Strategic Imperative for Europe

Three Russian authors, who opponse Putin and live abroad, propose a bold plan. They describe how Europe could achieve technological and military autonomy, without relying on the United States because the ideological positions of the American administration make it an uncertain ally, to say the least, and a possible enemy in the future. The authors write such autonomy is key to Europe’s survival.

The Russian-American threat to Europe

In their assessment of the current situation in Europe and around the world, Europe’s elites show a great deal of inertia, existing international and European institutions fail to provide adequate responses to unexpected challenges, and political leaders seek compromise where they should be standing firm to defend their positions. These positions seem to be lacking. Confusion reigns within the European establishment.

First of all, we need to recognize that no international institution – be it the UN, the EU or NATO – is eternal. And their crisis, transformation or disappearance is by no means a catastrophe. A change in the unifying principles of European countries is long overdue, perhaps through the creation of a strategic military-political bloc that would bring together states committed to a common defense and exclude those with opposing interests, such as Hungary or Slovakia. Such a bloc would prioritize accelerated militarization over the next 30 to 50 years, redirecting resources toward survival.

The creation of such a bloc would be a response to the rapprochement between Russia and the United States, which could go as far as an alliance against Europe. We need to stop once and for all talking about the madness and stupidity of Trump and his team. They have a rational plan to create a totalitarian America in which they will wield unlimited power with no political change. You only have to carefully read the Heritage Foundation’s doctrinal document entitled “Project 2025” to understand that Trump does not dream of the Nobel Peace Prize, except perhaps as one of those awards that dictators are so fond of collecting. Trump does not need peace, he needs war in order to thoroughly restructure American society and transform it into a totalitarian system. Compared to Russia, where totalitarianism has existed without interruption since 1917, constantly modifying and mimicking itself, this task is highly complex, but achievable.

The first thing Trump did was to purge the political elite and put into power people with no experience of democratic institutions, promoted commissioners. We should not call this a gamble on incompetence, because Trump and those close to him do not need the old competence. It is alien and harmful to them. The explosive change in the political elite, pledged then implemented by Trump, is to a large extent a repeat of the Russian totalitarian experience, which in turn harks back to the Russian matrix of Byzantine origin. It is well known that Byzantine autocracy, which like Russian autocracy had nothing in common with later Western absolutism, was distinguished from Western Europe by the great vertical mobility of the ruling elite. This is discussed in particular in the book “Russian Totalitarianism” by one of the authors of this piece. It also contains the first definition of totalitarianism in the history of studies of this phenomenon: an atavistic perversion of democracy.

Such perversion can occur in any democratic state, and the unique historical experience of the United States is no guarantee against totalitarian degeneration. The book emphasizes that the Russian matrix involves permanent imperial expansion, designed to replace the formation of a civil society. Wars were necessary for all three totalitarian entities. But the Italian model of totalitarianism created a corporatist state. Nazism relied heavily on the popular corporatism of German society. For the moment, Trump is closest to the Russian model. This makes him a natural ally for totalitarian Russia in its confrontation with Europe, which could go as far as military conflict.

Yes, that is exactly what it is. We are currently discussing what would happen to Europe if the United States refused to protect it against Russian aggression. It would be appropriate to consider what would happen to Europe in the event of aggression by the two totalitarian powers, Russia and America. And it would not even be necessary to invade Europe: American bases in European countries could play the same role in their history as the Soviet troops that were once stationed in Warsaw Pact countries. Should Trump and Putin decide to end European military aid to Ukraine, US military intervention in European politics would prove highly effective. American troops stationed in Europe could become a source of threats and opposition to London, Paris, and Berlin, for example over arms deliveries and financial aid to Ukraine. For Trump and his team, a war against Europe would be the most effective way to alienate American society and elites from European values. This process has already begun, with particularly intense activity by Vice President Pence and “henchman” Musk. Trump’s annexation of Greenland could mark the start of a new conflict, first with a single European country, then with the whole of Europe, and then, who knows?

The leaked conversation between senior Trump administration officials on Signal (Signalgate) shows, among other things, the Trump team’s high degree of repulsion toward Europe and its values. The old continent looks like a parasite living at America’s expense. US Vice President Vance and Secretary of Defense Hegseth explain this allegedly economically motivated stance in a conversation published in The Atlantic. Vance writes: “If you think we should do it, let’s do it. How I hate saving Europe again”. Hegseth echoes: “I completely share your disgust for European parasitism. Europe is pathetic.“

Even Russian strikes against the civilian population of Kryvyi Rih and Sumy have not prompted Donald Trump to directly condemn Russia as an aggressive state. The American president accuses his predecessor Joe Biden and Volodymyr Zelensky of being responsible for starting the war, along with Putin. Trump’s objective is most likely the division of Ukraine between the USA and Russia. This would take Europe back not to the time of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, but to the 18th Century, when Poland was partitioned. And ultimately, it would lead to the division of Europe between two superpowers.

All this is taking place against the backdrop of a tariff war between the EU and the USA. One option for a deal between the warring parties would be for Trump to cancel the tariffs in exchange for increased purchases of US gas and weapons. This would mean that the Europeans would forgo modernizing their own military-industrial complex as part of the Rearmament 2030 program. And it would make their defense capabilities even more dependent on the USA.

The statements and actions of Trump, Vance, Musk, and Witcoff hint at the idea, which previously seemed crazy, of an alliance between the USA and Russia. On the Russian side, proposals are being made to create a Russia-US bloc to fight “Eurofascism” and “the demented Europeans, traditionally pushed by Britain.” Whether or not this alliance sees the light of day, the very possibility should prompt Europeans to reassess their long-term vulnerabilities and chart a new course.

Ukraine, spearheading European independence

Europe’s technological autonomy offers a viable response, not as a practical necessity, but as a strategic imperative based above all on the lessons of Ukraine’s military stability and the collective military potential of European states.

We believe that Europe’s survival and the preservation of European values, i.e. the prevention of the advent of inhuman totalitarianism, depend on this autonomy. Our hypotheses are largely based on the new European defense doctrine published in March 2025 (hereinafter referred to as the “White Paper”), although the document makes no mention of the possible strategic and military alliance between the Russian Federation and the United States.

The White Paper stresses the need to integrate Ukrainian defense experience into European strategy. This means, among other things, including the Ukrainian defense sector in the single European supply and production chain. Ukraine is seen as a full member of the European defense space, not only as an object of assistance, but also as a source of common solutions. Its military experience and achievements in the field of autonomous systems form a basis for a broader European defense. Ukraine is not a financially dependent ally, but a strategic asset whose experience in hybrid and hot warfare and innovations must be integrated into the collective structure.

Technological autonomy

The White Paper confirms not only the EU’s vulnerability to hybrid threats, but also the urgent need for industrial and technological reorganization. Among the priorities are autonomous systems, AI, cybersecurity, and the reduction of the munitions deficit, which fits perfectly with our model. Recognition of the need for a single EU defense market, and in-depth reform of logistics, which doubles NATO’s potential but derives exclusively from European priorities, would be an important turning point. The role of the European innovation and production complex, a key element in the defense and security revolution, is particularly important in this respect. The principle of decentralization of production, management, and innovation needs to  become the institutional norm. This paves the way for the participation of external partners such as Israel, particularly in the field of cyberweapons, AI-based systems, and drones.

Europe needs to create networks of autonomous drones, ranging from small units to larger platforms, coordinated to neutralize threats such as hypersonic missile and drone attacks, as well as maritime invasions. Ukrainian wartime innovations provide a model that can be replicated on a European scale: production in Poland, testing in Romania, and coordination in Sweden. This decentralized approach reduces the risk of Russian sabotage.

Systems capable of identifying disinformation at its source or preventing digital attacks before they escalate will enable Europe to move from reaction to anticipation. Priority must be given to combating Russian-led hybrid warfare and responding appropriately to sabotage, so that Europe can rapidly take symmetrical measures to eliminate the threat of future attacks. No attack should go unnoticed, and must be met with a concrete response on the enemy’s territory.

Energy self-sufficiency

Dependence on Russian energy sources remains a critical weakness. The White Paper establishes a direct link between energy security and European military preparedness. Priorities include accelerating the diversification of energy sources, deploying modular nuclear reactors, and developing decentralized energy systems. This confirms our hypothesis: energy autonomy is no longer an element of the climate agenda or the “green transition,” but an integrated strategic defense tool. The document pays particular attention to reducing dependence on Russian oil and gas by developing our own capacities and trans-European networks. Energy architecture thus becomes an element of defense infrastructure.

Innovation and distributed investment

No single country can support such a transformation on its own. The EU’s Competitiveness and Innovation Program (CIP), made up of small and medium-sized companies, would distribute production and research – drones assembled in Poland, AI developed in Estonia, renewable energies built in Portugal – creating an autonomous and sustainable pan-European network. The planned investments, amounting to 15,000 billion euros in the medium term, are ambitious but achievable, and will be financed in particular by reallocating budgets, bonds, and targeted taxation. Israel could become the technological center of the CIP, exporting its start-up culture and defense technologies.

Possible consequences for Israel

The events of late 2024 and early 2025 have exacerbated the internal vulnerability of Israel, which until recently was perceived as a stable techno-nation, a member of powerful international alliances. However, the current political configuration – increasing concentration of power in the hands of Benjamin Netanyahu, repeated attempts to weaken the judiciary, and growing tensions within society – creates a risk of destabilization for the Jewish state.

Israeli democracy is undergoing institutional erosion and must adapt to a changing world. We believe that Israel is on the threshold of a redefinition of its geopolitical identity. If the alliance with the United States is no longer based on shared institutions and values, but on personal ties between Netanyahu and Trump, a partnership with Europe, based on shared civilizational values, could prove more productive and sustainable. To preserve its strategic flexibility, Israel must be prepared to offer Europe its technological ecosystem, not out of loyalty, but out of necessity for survival – a principle that the EU itself is increasingly adopting as the basis for new strategic thinking. Changes in the world are forcing Israel to reconsider its long-standing dependence on the United States, and prompting it to seek allies in Europe, since one of the consequences of US policy could be stronger ties with Russia, as Ksenia Svetlova writes.

Giving up symbiosis with Washington in favor of full integration into a strategic military-political bloc is tempting, since Europe’s technological needs match Israel’s strengths, at least in drone production, cyberdefense, and missile defense. However, such an approach risks isolating the country from American aid and influence, the lifeline on which it has depended for decades. A balanced approach – deepening ties with Europe while preserving relations with the United States – might be more appropriate, taking advantage of Israel’s technological superiority to negotiate levers of influence on both fronts. Of course, Israel could turn eastward and attract China or India as a counterweight to the Russian-American alliance, but their reliability is dubious and their interests do not coincide with those of the Jewish state.

The solution would be a middle way: a partnership in which Israel contributes its high-tech arsenal – for example, the creation of joint drone production plants in Haifa and Gdansk – and in exchange gets a seat at the negotiating table, not yet occupied by the superpowers. Israel’s survival depends on its flexibility, not its loyalty to any particular camp. The optimal strategy for Israel is to cooperate selectively with such a bloc – exporting its experience and securing economic ties – while retaining the flexibility to navigate a decaying world order. It is premature to turn away from the US alliance altogether, while a multi-faceted approach to relations with Europe as a main, but not sole, partner best enhances Israel’s sovereignty and serves its interests.

Meta-state sovereignty

A decentralized meta-state, linking states, regions, cities, and even diasporas through common goals and mutual defense, is a possible alternative to current alliances and unions. Such a network structure, recognized by a new international body replacing the UN, would adapt to contemporary challenges.

This model assumes not so much a vertical reinforcement of Brussels as a horizontal architecture in which the participation of cities, companies and research centers acquires a quasi-state importance. This is particularly relevant at a time when the main targets are no longer military infrastructures per se, but nuclear power plants, data centers, transport hubs and, just as importantly, the trust of citizens – the electorate of European countries, which in recent years has tended to support parties described as far-right. However, it would be more accurate to describe them as anti-establishment and potentially totalitarian.

Europe against the revolt of the masses

Romania and France, where legal proceedings against the leaders of these parties have led to their exclusion from the elections, set an important precedent. Germany is next on the list, where Alternative for Germany was prevented from taking part in government thanks to a coalition between its long-standing rivals, the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats.

That is democracy. Like the Romanian political elite, the French political elite has set up self-preservation mechanisms within the framework of democratic institutions, without waiting for misfortunes and upheavals, and without listening to the inflammatory speeches of Vance and Musk, who want to do away with democratic Europe. Not so long ago, Le Pen, Georgescu, Farage, and Weidel were considered a real Russian threat. They have now become a Russian-American threat.

The elite against the masses. Alternative for Germany, for example, positions itself as the “golden child of the German intellectual elite,” recalling the role of German universities in shaping Nazi ideology and bringing Hitler to power. The struggle for democracy sometimes takes this form. It happens when the popular masses are driven by the desire to find a primitive solution to the problems facing society and the state, and a part of the power-hungry elite responds to their expectations. This is how totalitarianism begins, taking different forms, but always just as primitive, relying on the direct participation of the masses, incapable of understanding in depth what is going on. The complicity of part of the elite – political, intellectual, and artistic – in this primitivization does nothing to change the nature of the phenomenon, which remains a mass-oriented movement.

These are the ideas that determine the policies of Trump and those close to him. The agendas of European fascism, supported by Russia and the USA, are equally simple and primitive. There is nothing downright fascist about it yet, but Europe’s historical experience shows that something similar, in a new form, will not fail to follow. The masses support totalitarian rulers because they promise them direct participation in power without any particular effort, based on simplistic reasoning. Indeed, the Alternatives for Germany program mentions “direct democracy” (direkte Demokratie), which, as we know, paves the way for totalitarianism.

Democratic elites are then forced to resort to authoritarian methods. The sooner the better. The key is to deprive potential leaders of any possibility of influencing the masses.

No one has noticed in the actions of the Romanian and French courts a return to what happened in Europe after the Second World War. The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program) provided for the ousting of Communists from the governments of countries benefiting from American aid. Now, however, the removal of anti-establishment forces from politics is taking place against the wishes of the United States. The links of these parties with Russia are well known, and they have now received the support of Vance in his anti-European rhetoric, which reflects the contempt of the American ruling elite for Europe and its rejection of European values. This is why, with the Russian and American elites’ views on Europe’s role and place in Putin and Trump’s new world coming closer together, a European military-political strategic bloc, supported by Israel’s technological and strategic contribution, could become an instrument for defending the civilizational values that have always been and will remain European.

These values must become the foundation of a new European identity, without which it is impossible to achieve technological, political, and economic autonomy. Ursula von der Leyen’s interview with Die Zeit,  headline “We have no bros and no oligarchs”, in which she sets out the fundamental principles and values of European politics and Europe’s place in the world and in history, was an important step toward understanding this new European reality and consciousness.