At the beginning of his second term, President Trump bluntly told Europeans that America has shifted its focus away from Europe; it is no longer a priority in American security planning. European security will mostly depend on its own efforts. Additionally, NATO members will need to increase their defense budgets, or the U.S. will drastically trim its contributions and commitments. These dire warnings made Europeans extremely nervous. Consequently, the transatlantic security pact has been in turmoil ever since, edging towards a split.
The American warnings to the Europeans were long overdue, as they had become complacent for decades; however, in hindsight, their challenges have revealed valuable opportunities. They can enhance their situations. The Europeans have ample support systems to develop capabilities. Therefore, adopting, integrating, and implementing pragmatic measures will help them reshape their security outlook.
Europeans must believe in their ability to adopt and establish their collective security. Funding is often the main obstacle for defense budgets, but Europe has the wherewithal to overcome it. For example, non-U.S. NATO countries have a combined economy of $26 trillion, compared to Russia’s $2 trillion. With such financial strength, creating a strong European security system to confront Russian threats is entirely achievable.
Currently, about 80,000 American troops are stationed in Europe. However, the U.S. has begun reducing its military presence there, starting with the initial withdrawal from Romania. If Europe can assemble a military force of 100,000 soldiers comprised of Europeans, then the overall U.S. withdrawal can be balanced, leaving enough reserves for rotational duties and deployments to specific strategic locations. This aligns with EU Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius’s call for a ‘rapid reaction force’ for European defense.
Europe could also develop its own military hardware within the continent; establishing a European Defense Industrial Complex would improve interoperability and decrease reliance on U.S.-produced weapons, and both France and the UK could extend a nuclear deterrence umbrella. This defense spending will modernise infrastructure, generate substantial jobs, and stimulate the economy. And the implementation of these projects will establish Europe as an independent security powerhouse.
While these measures would strengthen the European security framework, they also pose challenges. For example, without the U.S. as NATO’s leader, coordinating, commanding, and controlling military units could become more difficult. Nationalism, for instance, might cause divisions within the security alliance. The U.S. has been a strong stabilising force in managing this contentious issue so far. However, with mutual agreement and in the absence of U.S. leadership, either France or Germany could take the lead.
Critics might argue that the U.S. cannot easily jettison its NATO commitments due to fundamental restraints; for instance, the 2026 National Defense Authorisation Act (NDAA) mandates maintaining 76,000 troops in Europe. Ramstein Air Base in Germany supports operations across Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. Additionally, annual arms sales to NATO countries, averaging $22 billion in 2022 and 2023, are increasing. Giving up these advantages would markedly harm American interests.
Nevertheless, it is important to remember what caused the rift between the U.S. and Europe and why this ongoing security issue won’t be resolved soon. The tensions mainly come from Trump’s disdain for multilateralism. He is a unilateralist who believes his own morals guide him; he dislikes being constrained by international law, alliances, or traditional policies that restrict his power.
Trump’s aggressive stance on trying to acquire Greenland clearly shows a unilateral approach. Article 5 of the NATO treaty states that an attack on one member is an attack on all. However, Trump ignored Article 5’s ban and threatened to use military force to take Greenland. This would have meant the U.S. attacking another NATO member, the Kingdom of Denmark, since Greenland is its autonomous territory. Such a move could have caused NATO to fall apart, as the Danish Prime Minister warned. Still, Trump remained firm in his position.
Annexation threats to Greenland, however, served as the final wake-up call for NATO members; they had become too blasé about receiving a blanket U.S. security guarantee. Trump made them see the bigger picture: NATO members have not contributed as much to their U.S. security guarantee as U.S. taxpayers have. Their contribution to NATO was 2% of their GDP until Trump pushed them to increase it to 5% by 2035. ‘Riding the gravy train’ has its limits; Europe is finally recognising this and agreeing to raise its contributions.
Furthermore, the mistake Europeans keep making by extending the Ukraine war is proving costly. The longer it goes on, the heavier the burden they must bear. Russia is winning the war, and Ukraine will likely lose significant territory. Therefore, the U.S. has been trying to stop it; meanwhile, Europeans want to keep it going. They believe that as long as the war continues, the U.S. will stay involved in Europe. It’s an act of desperation. Unlike President Biden, Trump lost interest in Ukraine a long time ago.
Thus, even referring to Trump as ‘daddy,’ as Mark Rutte, the NATO secretary general, did, no longer satisfies him. Trump wants Europe to take responsibility for its own security. Recently, Marco Rubio, at the Munich Security Conference, reiterated that “Washington does not need vassals, but strong partners.” Yet Europeans keep begging the U.S. to continue playing its ‘good-old’ role. Logically, Europe needs to listen to Trump; they should not keep depending on a hesitant U.S. President as their ‘parent’ much longer. Trump has already had enough of Europe. Therefore, Europe must become self-reliant in its security, and the time to act is now.
The writer is a Doctoral Researcher, International Relations, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM)
