Europe is in a “geopolitical emergency.” This isn’t the tagline of an apocalyptic film, but the diagnosis of French President Emmanuel Macron. In a coordinated media offensive targeting seven leading European publications, the occupant of the Élysée Palace threw down the gauntlet not only to China, but also to Washington.
His core message is clear: Europe must stop being naive and start playing hardball. And that means money. Macron insists on a collective issuance of debt – so-called eurobonds – to finance the technological race and defense spending.
“The debt of the EU is lower than that of the US and China. Not using this opportunity is a serious mistake,” the French president stated categorically.
The goal is clear – challenging the hegemony of the dollar and creating financial independence.
The Nuclear Option in Finance
Macron’s words come at a moment when Brussels and Frankfurt are discussing an even more alarming scenario: what would happen if Europe decided to use its most powerful economic weapon – the sale of US government debt.
We are talking about a colossal sum. Europe holds around $3.8 trillion in US Treasury bonds – more than Japan and China individually. What we have is a lever of influence that could theoretically cripple the dollar and cause chaos in the US.
“This is the ‘nuclear option’ in finance,” warned financial analyst Kalin Georgiev of BenchMark Finance to Bloomberg TV Bulgaria. According to him, such a move would trigger a chain reaction and a global recession.
Martin Turpanov, Head of Debt Instruments at DeltaStock, is even more direct: “That would mean financial war.”
A coordinated sale would lead to a spike in interest rates across the Atlantic and serious shocks for banks.
Why the Gun Will Likely Remain Holstered
However tempting it may sound to geopolitical strategists, economic logic cools passions. Tsvetoslav Tachev of “Elana Trading” recalls that even though these trillions of dollars give indirect influence, Europe has no interest in selling them, because it would realize enormous losses.
“The process of selling has already begun, but for purely technical reasons, not strategic ones,” explains Petko Valkov of BBR. “As long as Europe has a trade surplus with the US, it will maintain a positive investment position towards American assets (…) No serious shocks are expected. Exposure to equities may even increase.”
economist Daniel Vasilev points out the important detail that most of the bonds are held by private investors. There is no mechanism by which Macron or Brussels could force them to press the “sell” button.
The Real Battle: Technologies and Fighter Jets
If the financial apocalypse is postponed, the trade and technology war is already raging. Macron defines the administration of Donald Trump as “openly anti-European” and warns that Washington will attack the EU because of its attempts to regulate digital giants.
“When there is a clear act of aggression, we must not submit or seek agreement. We have been trying this strategy for months. It doesn’t work,” the French president insists.
His recipe is well-known, but now sounds more urgent: “Buy European.” This applies especially to defense. Macron declared that the project for a new generation fighter jet (FCAS) between France, Germany and Spain is alive, despite rumors of problems between Paris and Berlin. He hopes for a breakthrough in talks with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz.
The Kremlin, meanwhile, is resurrecting Soviet-era narratives about eternal sacrifice in the name of Russia, according to the Institute for the Study of War (ISW). Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov reiterated on , claims that NATO remains a significant threat to Russia due to its expansion and support for Ukraine. Lavrov also asserted that NATO is expanding its influence into the Indo-Pacific region, the Middle East, the South Caucasus, and Central and South Asia, ostensibly to contain China, isolate Russia, and counter North Korea. Russian Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu echoed these sentiments, stating Russia is resisting Western pressure and propaganda aimed at dividing the country into “ethnic states.”
These narratives, the ISW notes, are reminiscent of Cold War-era justifications used by the Soviet Union to portray itself as surrounded by enemies. The Kremlin appears to be using this rhetoric to justify potential future aggression and the long-term mobilization of Russian society.
