How might Macron's emergency meeting impact NATO's role in Europe

Introduction

French President Emmanuel Macron’s emergency summit in Paris on February 17, 2025, represents a pivotal moment for European security and NATO’s evolving role.

The meeting, convened in response to the Trump administration’s unilateral diplomatic overtures to Russia over Ukraine, underscores deepening anxieties about transatlantic alignment and Europe’s capacity to assert strategic autonomy.

By gathering leaders from Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Poland, Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark, and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Macron aims to forge a cohesive European response to what German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock termed an “existential moment” for the continent.

This summit could recalibrate NATO’s function in three critical ways: accelerating Europe’s defense integration, testing transatlantic trust, and redefining burden-sharing dynamics.

Reasserting European Strategic Autonomy Within NATO

Macron’s emergency meeting reflects a broader shift toward European strategic autonomy, a vision he first articulated in his 2017 Sorbonne speech.

Analysts like Célia Belin of the European Council on Foreign Relations note that geopolitical realities—Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Trump’s transactional approach to NATO, and Europe’s industrial limitations—have transformed this vision from an abstract ideal into an operational imperative.

The Trump administration’s recent exclusion of European leaders from U.S.-Russia peace talks has intensified pressure for Europe to assume greater responsibility for its security, even as Macron’s government insists that such efforts will complement, not replace, NATO.

This dual-track strategy—strengthening European defense capabilities while maintaining NATO as the cornerstone of collective security—faces significant hurdles.

Eastern European nations like Poland remain wary of initiatives that might dilute U.S. commitments, as Krzysztof Błędowski of the Rzeszów University notes.

However, Macron’s outreach to Central and Eastern Europe, including Poland’s participation in the Paris summit, signals an attempt to reconcile France’s traditionally Gaullist stance with the security priorities of NATO’s eastern flank.

The inclusion of NATO Secretary General Rutte further emphasizes Macron’s intent to position European defense integration as a pillar within, rather than apart from, the alliance.

Transatlantic Trust and the Risk of Fragmentation

The emergency summit occurs against a backdrop of eroding trust in U.S. leadership.

Trump’s decision to engage Putin directly on Ukraine—eschewing consultation with European allies—has reignited fears of a unilateral U.S. pivot away from NATO’s founding principle of collective defense.

U.S. officials’ dismissive remarks about Europe’s role in negotiations, such as Special Envoy Keith Kellogg’s assertion that “Europe would lack representation” in talks, have exacerbated tensions.

Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski likened Trump’s tactics to Russia’s “reconnaissance through battle” strategy, where provocative actions test adversaries’ resolve before adjusting positions.

For NATO, this dynamic risks creating a two-tiered alliance.

European leaders, as Alexandra de Hoop Scheffer of the German Marshall Fund observes, increasingly recognize the need to prepare for scenarios where U.S. support is diminished or conditional.

Macron’s summit may catalyze concrete steps toward defense industrial cooperation, such as joint procurement agreements and standardized military systems—an area where fragmentation has long plagued European capabilities.

However, as John R. Deni of the U.S. Army War College warns, overlapping national defense projects (e.g., multiple tank programs) and under-resourced commitments to NATO’s eastern flank could undermine these efforts.

Burden-Sharing and the 2% vs. 5% Debate

A central tension at the Paris meeting revolves around defense spending.

Trump’s demand that NATO allies allocate 5% of GDP to defense—up from the 2% target—has polarized European capitals.

While Macron has historically championed greater European contributions, France itself has faced criticism for lagging behind Germany and Poland in military aid to Ukraine.

The summit provides an opportunity for leaders to reconcile divergent fiscal realities with geopolitical urgency.

Eastern European nations, particularly Poland and the Baltic states, are likely to advocate for immediate increases in defense budgets and accelerated weapons deliveries to Ukraine.

In contrast, Southern European countries like Spain and Italy may prioritize economic stability over rapid militarization.

Macron’s challenge lies in brokering a consensus that satisfies both camps while addressing Trump’s demands.

The participation of UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who has pledged to deploy British troops to uphold a potential Ukraine ceasefire, suggests a willingness among some European powers to assume greater operational roles.

Conclusion

NATO’s Evolution or Erosion?

Macron’s emergency meeting underscores a paradoxical reality: Europe’s push for strategic autonomy could either reinvigorate NATO or deepen its internal fissures.

If the summit yields tangible outcomes—such as a unified stance on Ukraine aid, progress toward defense industrial integration, or a roadmap for meeting spending targets—it may strengthen NATO’s European pillar and reassure Washington of the alliance’s vitality.

Conversely, a fragmented response could embolden Trump’s transactional approach, further marginalizing Europe in transatlantic decision-making.

The coming weeks will test whether Macron’s vision of a “sovereign Europe” can translate into actionable policies that balance autonomy with alliance cohesion.

As Carnegie Europe’s Pierre Vimont cautions, European unity often falters when crises subside. Yet with Russia’s war persisting and U.S. commitments in flux, this moment may represent a rare alignment of necessity and opportunity for NATO’s future.