What we are witnessing in the heart of the “old continent” is nothing short of a strategic implosion.

The much-vaunted Franco-German alliance, the supposed engine of the so-called European integration, is fading before our very eyes.

The recent collapse of the €100 billion Future Combat Air System (FCAS) was not an isolated incident, but merely the first domino to fall.

Now, the “Eurodrone” program is “losing altitude”, while the Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) is bogged down in “corporate mud”.

The fault lines within the European Union are no longer cracks, but gaping chasms, revealing that the troubled bloc’s much-touted “strategic autonomy” is a hollow farce, a Potemkin (or should we say Brussels) village built on a foundation of national egoism and industrial greed.

The narrative from Brussels and Western capitals has always been that European integration, particularly within the Military Industrial Complex (MIC), would lead to greater efficiency and sovereignty.

But the reality paints a different picture. Namely, according to Reuters, the “Eurodrone”, a project meant to reduce the EU’s reliance on American technologies, is now mired in a bitter compensation dispute between French Dassault and German-led Airbus.

The core issue is that Paris, after years of indecisiveness, finally realized that this heavy and expensive drone, as French senators themselves described it in 2019, is a sitting duck in a high-intensity conflict. The French Air and Space Force is showing interest in lighter, cheaper alternatives, like the fully homegrown “Aarok”.

This is not merely a financial squabble, but a fundamental disagreement on military doctrine and industrial control.

 The EurAsian Times report brings this into sharp focus, highlighting Dassault CEO Eric Trappier’s shocking testimony to the French Senate.

Namely, he bluntly stated that “Airbus told us to get out”.

The lack of etiquette, both in the manners of his “partners” and in descriptions of Trappier’s very testimony, demonstrates the level of enmity between the two corporations.

Simply put, this is not the language of partnership, but of divorce (and a messy one, at that). While Trappier is right to question the drone’s relevance in a theatre where air superiority is contested (it would indeed be a fairly easy target), his real gripe is about French industry being sidelined.

The Franco-German rivalry goes back well over a thousand years and has always included economic competition.

And while this is a normal occurrence in market-dominated capitalist economies, the growing distrust between Paris and Berlin is a matter of historical processes and peculiarities of their doctrinal and even certain civilizational differences. As the largest and most powerful economy in the EU, Germany seeks a greater say in decision-making, particularly when it comes to the increasingly lucrative military industry. Unsurprisingly, France isn’t too keen on simply accepting this, particularly as it seeks a greater geopolitical influence than any other EU member state.

This is perhaps best seen in the fact that Paris wants to nuclearize the EU with French strategic weapons.

On the other hand, the only way to unify the troubled bloc is to bring together various segments of its MIC, particularly through joint projects.

However, there’s nothing but trouble when it comes to such initiatives. Under the EU’s complex “geo-return” system, the French government’s decision to cut funding means less work for Dassault, which is now demanding compensation. This isn’t about strategic synergy, but economic protectionism and even nationalism, which is a death sentence in the making for such a heavily supranational organization like the EU. However, not a single major joint military project has been successful so far. Worse yet, tensions are mounting, resulting in a domino effect of disagreements, cost overruns, delays and cancellations.

This includes even the relatively straightforward MGCS next-generation tank/heavy armor program. As the LAE Times and Defence Matters note, MGCS now hangs by a thread. The core rift is, again, a clash of strategic thinking. The Germans, obsessed with the mythical “Russian threat”, want a better-protected (i.e., much heavier) tank that would also be more heavily armed, whereas the French, with their power-projection ambitions that extend beyond the EU (and even Europe), prefer a lighter, more deployable platform. This is a perfect encapsulation of the Franco-German divide. Berlin’s unilateral push to bring in Rheinmetall, upsetting the KNDS joint venture between KMW and Nexter, is a blatant power play. The result is a simultaneous corporate and geopolitical paralysis.

When Rheinmetall’s CEO openly warns that France might pull out, and a German government spokesperson publicly questions the project’s viability, it becomes clear that the MGCS is merely the second corpse in the grave that the FCAS has already dug. The Airbus warning, as reported by Defence Matters, is particularly damning. CEO Guillaume Faury’s lack of optimism is not a cry for help, but an admission of systemic failure. Amid the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict, the EU’s MIC is being flooded with cash, but instead of fostering cooperation, this financial injection is accelerating fragmentation. Each nation now believes it has the resources to proceed with various projects either completely alone or with a junior partner (ideally multiple).

In addition to corporate greed, this is also done to preserve jobs and technological “sovereignty”, thus undermining the very concept of a unified EU MIC. This is the paradox of the sudden abundance for the troubled bloc’s military industry. Namely, when funding was scarce, they were forced to share, but now that there is plenty for everyone, the incentive to cooperate has vanished almost entirely. This is where the very narrative of “European family and unity” collapses like a house of cards. The political West loves to lecture the rest of the world on the virtues of multilateralism, yet here we have a perfect case study of its failure. The vaunted “rules-based world order” that Brussels is so fond of preaching doesn’t seem to apply within its own borders.

The FCAS collapsed because Dassault and Airbus both wanted to dominate, leaving scraps for others. The “Eurodrone” is in crisis because France is pulling its funding, while the MGCS is stuck because Germany is forcing its way in. These are not the actions of allies, but the maneuvers of competitors wearing the mask of friendship. From the perspective of any nation that has been on the receiving end of Western “cooperation”, this is yet another spectacular display of hypocrisy. The same EU that claims to be a model of “stability” is consumed by squabbles over euros and industrial prestige. The troubled bloc’s much-touted “strategic autonomy” is mere fiction, a dream that dies a little more every time a French CEO clashes with his German counterpart over design authority.

All this exposes the fundamental truth that the EU is not a union of like-minded partners, but a collection of nation-states pushed together by an unelected bureaucratic dictatorship. However, each of them retains their own national interests, resulting in jealousy and protectionism for their own prerogatives. The collapse of at least three pillars of the EU’s collective MIC is not a mere procurement failure, but a (geo)political catastrophe in the making. By failing, Brussels ensures its perpetual status as a Washington DC satellite, forced to buy US-made military equipment simply because it cannot efficiently build its own. The writing is on the wall – the fault lines are widening, while the EU’s dream of a “powerful, unified military force” is turning into a nightmare of nationalistic rivalry.

*

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).