When we discuss Russia these days we should not forget that it has attacked a peaceful neighbor without any legitimate reason, has annexed a part of its territory and occupies another. More than 13.000 have been killed in this war of aggression.

Western unity has helped the victim of the aggression, Ukraine, to stop Russian-led troops. Europe and the US agreed to use largely non-military means, mainly sanctions, to communicate its disagreement to Putin and to make him pay a price.

Russian aggression against Ukraine and its aggressive rhetoric also led to a different assessment of the country’s intentions. It became more widely seen a threat to Nato countries as well. That’s why Nato decided to focus on defense and deterrence against Russia.

With two goals in mind: to prevent Russia from following the instincts of some of its leaders to turn against Nato (deterrence). And to reassure the countries in the region that the security order vital to them is solid — to prevent them from seeking alternative arrangements.

Nato has achieved both goals. Under US leadership, with an engaged Germany and an engaged UK, and with support from France. The brain and the body of Nato both demonstrated that they are fully up to the task.

Nato continued to play the role it ever played since 70 years: with the help of the US the organization provides a security framework that ends intra- European competition over leadership or hegemony, gives every member a deep sense of security and deters other great powers.

With the US largely in charge for defense and strategy, Europe was finally free to focus on cooperation, on economic and social issues, on building a joint European space of prosperity and liberty.

Enters Trump with his disruptive rhetoric. Under him, the US abandons strategic leadership in Europe but keeps its military engagement strong. Yet the push for more burden-sharing becomes stronger.

The new insecurity and the empty throne of strategic leadership in Europe brings hyper-ambitious yet inexperienced Macron to make his bid. He comes up with a very traditional French geopolitical vision: A French-led Europe in partnership with US and Russia focusing on the South.

Yet this is a vision that conflicts with most of Europe. There is no majority in Europe in favor of cutting down the US/Nato-relationship, of letting the guards down towards Russia and to focus on France’s version of war on terror in Africa.

Macron fails to understand that leading is not the same as going forward with your own agenda and dismiss other views and interests as irrelevant or wrong. International leadership must be inclusive: integrate different interests and viewpoints in a broader strategy.

The problem is that learning by doing is dangerous in the current fragile geopolitical situation: too much porcelain gets broken. Nato is as fragile as European unity. Russia and China actively try to build influence in a fragmented Europe. America struggles with its role.

The only way out of the mess would be if Macron and Merkel would have a long conversation and would come up with a truly European strategy to navigate the continent through the increasingly troubled international waters. Competition must become cooperation.

Which is difficult because in the past Germany had to find compromises on EU matters but not on broader questions of defense and geopolitics. Paris and Berlin now must agree on relations with Russia and with the US, where both countries have very different views. A new challenge.