My father, much like many French policymakers, strongly believes in bringing back mandatory service. Under President Emmanuel Macron’s new rules, French youth over 16 years old will have the opportunity to serve for a month, but policymakers are also considering bringing back the old mandate for military service, where every French citizen would be required to serve for a minimum of 6 months. Ostensibly the “Service National Universel” aims to transmit French republican values and maintain national cohesion, but its return is of course tied to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and a possible second Trump presidency. 

The election is still six months away, but at the time of writing, Donald Trump looks like the favorite. “Gun to my head, I’d give him between a three-in-five and two-in-three chance of winning the Electoral College, pricing in polling, legal issues, abortion, and everything else,” says Milan Singh ’26, who is an opinion columnist for the News. 

Trump has repeatedly stated that he would end American aid to Ukraine. From stating that he would let Russia do “whatever the hell they want” to NATO allies that don’t meet their financial goals in the alliances, to blatantly answering “yeah” when asked whether he would not defend NATO countries, it’s clear the alliance is in peril.

The United States is currently the largest contributor of both military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine by far. If this aid were cut off, Europe would be faced with some very tough decisions. 

In anticipation of a possible second Trump administration, European leaders have begun discussing plans for a world without American support. Macron has renewed his calls for France to reinstate mandatory military service and for Europe to embrace a doctrine of “strategic autonomy” — that is, to maintain a large enough defense force to abstain from American assistance.

Europe is already inching in that direction. Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and Romania have bought 1,000 Patriot missiles, systems that are able to eliminate airborne threats, while Denmark is sending nearly all of its artillery to Ukraine. But the fact remains that the United States has provided the lion’s share of military aid, and right now, Europe simply does not have the capacity to fill the gap should Washington turn isolationist. 

All of this comes as the Ukrainian counter-offensive has stalled in the face of legions of Russian conscripts. Although the Ukrainians have access to important anti-armor and anti-air weapons systems as well as artillery capabilities like CAESAR and M109 systems, which are used for long range bombardment, they simply don’t have enough munitions and personnel to sustain the war at its current pace. Fortunately, Europe does have the financial firepower to fill in for an absent America. But, if Europe does not rapidly increase defense spending, military aid, and pivot to war time economies, the situation for Ukraine looks rather bleak.

At present, it’s not clear that Putin would stop at Kyiv. During his tenure as president, he has launched military interventions in several nations: Mali, via Wagner PMC; during the Syrian civil war on the side of Assad; in Georgia; and in Crimea in 2014. If Trump follows through on his promise to kneecap NATO and Ukraine falls, Putin would only be emboldened. 

Today it’s Ukraine, and tomorrow it might be the Baltic States and Moldova. Top officials in some of these countries are already sounding the alarm. The German defense minister publicly worries that Putin might attack a NATO country within the next five to eight years.

That is not to say that further Russian invasions are imminent or even likely. Still, Europe must prepare itself for a world where America takes a diminished role in defending it from Russian aggression. The fact of the matter is that Europe has the money to support Ukraine’s defense and its own. Whether or not Trump wins, it is in the continent’s interests to pursue strategic autonomy. What remains to be seen is whether there is the political will to do so. Although Europe has the necessary endowments to achieve strategic autonomy and guarantee the safety of the continent, policymakers and citizens alike are still reluctant to prepare for a world without American assistance. Whether we see this depends on both Brussels these coming years — and in America this November.

LUCA GIRODON is a sophomore in Branford College. Contact him at luca.girodon@yale.edu.

The post GIRODON: The case for European strategic autonomy appeared first on Yale Daily News.

I crept towards him, introduced myself and said that I wanted to be a diplomat when I grew up. He took a couple of seconds, then shouted: “WHAT?” After repeating myself a couple of times, he looked at me like he was trying to collect his thoughts, only to answer with “good.” Then he waddled towards the stage. 

He was 98 then and still actively involved in U.S. foreign policy. Less than a month ago, Kissinger was advising Secretary of State Antony Blinken. In November, he was invited by Xi Jinping to discuss the future of U.S.-China relations — and send a subtle message of détente to Washington amid rising tensions. More than 50 years after his departure from government  — and now from this mortal plane — he’s still shaping global affairs.

Kissinger died last Wednesday. While reading about him, I recalled a quote from Anthony Bourdain’s “A Cook’s Tour”: “Once you’ve been to Cambodia, you’ll never stop wanting to beat Henry Kissinger to death with your bare hands.” 

In 1969, Kissinger advised Richard Nixon to bomb Cambodia and Laos to destroy Northern Vietnam’s supply lines. Instead, the bombings killed 150,000, destabilized Cambodia and led to the rise of the Khmer Rouge, who killed millions — and we lost in Vietnam anyways. Look at a globe and you can see the impact of Kissinger’s diplomacy in blood. Argentina, Chile and  Indonesia are a few examples. 

By any sane definition of the label, Kissinger was a war criminal. In international relations, there are often no good choices on the table; diplomats are forced to make tough choices and pick the least bad one. The Dayton Accords, which ended the Bosnian war, are a classic example of this. From 1992 to 1995, a complex conflict erupted between ethnic Croats, Serbs and Bosniaks, with atrocities committed by both sides. Richard Holdbrooke, U.S. peace negotiator for Bosnia, was able to put an end to a bloody conflict. But in order to cut a deal, he had to reward Republika Srpska — the Serbian majority state in Bosnia — with territory. 

This is not to say that Kissinger’s actions were the least bad ones; the New York Times obituary paints him as a man who all too often viewed populations as chess pawns in some grand game. But in the fog of the Cold War, when the U.S. was scrambling to counterbalance an increasingly assertive and well-armed Soviet Union, he saw his actions as necessary to sustain Pax Americana.

National security is a tricky and dirty game, and everyone who plays it soils their hands to some extent. But a fair assessment of a leader’s actions must involve consideration of their alternatives. Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan was harshly criticized in mainstream media at the time, but the alternative option — stay and send more troops to fight a war that we could not win — was given little attention. Kissinger’s choices were often Machiavellian and sometimes reprehensible, but imagine the world without them. Would America have opened diplomatic relations with China, our primary geopolitical rival? How stable would the world order be? Would we have overcome the Cold War?

Henry Kissinger was far from a saint and farther still from a good man, but we should not evaluate his actions outside their historical context. From normalizing relations with Beijing,  ushering in a new era of backchannel diplomacy and propping up dictators in Latin America, he was the most influential — for good and ill — American diplomat of the 20th century. We cannot escape his legacy, but we will never see the likes of him again. Thank God.

LUCA GIRODON is a sophomore in Branford College. Contact him at luca.girodon@yale.edu.

The post GIRODON: Kissinger’s complicated legacy appeared first on Yale Daily News.