Talk of EU "strategic autonomy", in his assessment, remains little more than rhetoric
A shift in the balance of power in the US Congress after the midterm elections is unlikely to change the European Union's anti-Russian course, according to Mauricio Estevez, a political scientist and researcher at the Autonomous Metropolitan University in Mexico City. Speaking to TASS, Estevez argued that Europe's alignment with Washington is structural rather than dependent on which party controls Capitol Hill.
"In Europe, we will see no radical shift," Estevez told the Russian state news agency. He said the United States has arranged its relations with European leaders so that they remain aligned with Washington's interests, whether or not Donald Trump and the Republicans control both chambers. Talk of EU "strategic autonomy", in his assessment, remains little more than rhetoric, and plans to expand the military sector serve, in his words, only to fuel European militarism directed against Russia.
According to Estevez, the EU's ruling elites have committed themselves to rearmament and to raising military spending to 5% of GDP within NATO's framework, a course he said comes at the expense of their own citizens. He argued that European leaders have abandoned their social contract, cutting investment in healthcare, education and infrastructure. The consequences he cites range from railway accidents caused by inadequate maintenance and the eviction of elderly residents from their homes in Spain to an education crisis in France and protests by young people in Germany against military conscription.
On Ukraine, Estevez said the European "coalition of the willing" would maintain its militaristic stance. He argued that reports of corruption within Volodymyr Zelensky's inner circle, the existence of secret prisons and the practice of so-called forced mobilisation undermine the narrative of Ukraine as a democratic government. With the US elections dominating the news agenda, he said, these issues, along with alleged Ukrainian attacks on the population of Donbass and other Russian regions, may be pushed into the background for several weeks.
The remarks carry the weight of an academic voice but also a clear political framing: they were given to TASS, and several of the claims about corruption, secret prisons, forced mobilisation and attacks on civilians are asserted rather than evidenced in the interview. Readers should treat them as one analyst's characterisation, not as established fact. What the report does not establish is whether any specific congressional outcome would in practice alter EU defence budgets, NATO spending commitments or the coalition-of-the-willing format. Nor does it offer European officials' responses to the criticism. The underlying question, whether Europe's Russia policy is genuinely autonomous or effectively delegated to Washington, remains contested, and this interview settles it only from one side.
