M. A. Hossain,
History doesn’t always knock politely. Sometimes, it barges in—loud, disorderly, and unmistakable. That is what Europe now faces: a moment not of quiet evolution but of rupture. The era of American strategic paternalism is drawing to a close, and with it, the illusion that Europe can enjoy the privileges of sovereignty without shouldering the burdens of its own defense.
With Donald Trump back in the White House, the rupture in U.S.-EU relations is no longer a speculative scenario—it is unfolding in real time. And for Europe, this means a rude awakening from its postwar security slumber. Trump’s “America First” foreign policy—transactional, unpredictable, and often contemptuous of traditional alliances—has shaken the very foundations of NATO. But let’s not confuse the messenger with the message. The real alarm isn’t Trump himself. It is the exposed fragility of a Europe still reliant on American resolve, even as that resolve steadily erodes.
For decades, Europe indulged in a strategic holiday. Shielded by U.S. nuclear guarantees and conventional might, it poured resources into welfare programs and energy transitions while outsourcing the basics of deterrence. This arrangement worked when the United States was both willing and eager to underwrite the security of the West. That era is over—regardless of who occupies the Oval Office.
Trump merely states with bluntness what more and more Americans across the political spectrum now believe: Europe must do more for itself. This is not isolationism. It’s a recalibration of American priorities. And while it may feel jarring, it is neither unreasonable nor entirely new.
Europe’s security challenge today isn’t simply about deterring Russian aggression or countering Chinese influence. It’s about proving that liberal democracy can defend its values—rule of law, individual liberty, and national sovereignty—in the face of resurgent authoritarianism. The war in Ukraine has made the stakes painfully clear. The only question now is whether Europe can act before the next crisis imposes the decision upon it.
Strategic clarity must start with moral clarity. Today, two competing visions define global geopolitics. The first is revisionist and authoritarian: borders are changed by force, legitimacy is dictated by fear, and brute strength becomes the final arbiter. Think Putin’s offensive in Ukraine or Beijing’s incremental dominance in the South China Sea.
The second vision clings to the liberal order forged after 1945: that sovereignty is sacred, alliances matter, and democratic societies must stand united against coercion. The problem is that defenders of this second vision—Europe foremost among them—too often speak in the language of resolve while acting in the grammar of hesitation.
President Emmanuel Macron recognized this contradiction years ago. In 2019, he declared NATO “brain dead”—not to discredit the alliance but to highlight its growing dysfunction. His call for European strategic autonomy was once derided. Now, it seems prophetic.
Russia’s full-scale offensive operation in Ukraine was not only a challenge to Kyiv; it was a geopolitical thunderclap that should have shattered Europe’s illusions about lasting peace. The response—military aid, sanctions, NATO expansion—was commendable. But let’s be honest: the backbone of that response was American. Logistics, firepower, and intelligence flowed primarily from Washington, not Brussels.
Which brings us to the present moment. Trump is in power once again. His skepticism toward NATO is no longer theoretical. If he chooses to downgrade U.S. commitments or worse—reward Putin’s aggression with strategic indifference—the fragile veneer of transatlantic unity will crack wide open. The writing is on the wall: American globalism is in retreat, and Europe must not be caught unprepared in its wake.
The alternatives to U.S. leadership aren’t yet sufficient—but they must be built. A proposed “E5” grouping—France, Germany, the UK, Poland, and Italy—could serve as the nucleus of a serious European defense initiative. Including the Baltic states, with their high readiness and historical awareness of Russian aggression, would inject both urgency and credibility.
This should not be seen as NATO 2.0. It should be seen as Europe 1.0: a long-overdue affirmation that the continent can act like a geopolitical adult.
What would this require?
First, spending. Too many NATO members still fall short of the 2% of GDP benchmark. This is not about meeting quotas—it’s about securing futures. The focus should be on next-generation warfare: drones, cyber defenses, missile intercept systems—not just aging tanks and parade-ready uniforms.
Second, procurement. Europe has the industrial base for robust defense manufacturing, but fragmentation and parochialism hold it back. A common defense market—anchored in Berlin, Paris, and Stockholm—must replace outdated national favoritism.
Third, command. A European Strategic Command—independent of NATO but interoperable with it—must be established. This isn’t a hedge against the United States; it’s a hedge against American unpredictability. Structure fosters strength. Sentiment alone won’t unify a continent.
Fourth, partnerships. Canada, the UK, and Norway are essential allies. So is the transatlantic relationship. Europe’s objective should not be a divorce from the U.S., but a recalibrated relationship—one grounded in mutual capacity, not dependency.
This is not a call for militarism or nationalism. It is a call for responsibility. Europe has been lulled by the comforting delusion that peace is permanent and history is linear. That trade pacifies tyrants. That diplomacy contains despots. That soft power is sufficient.
It isn’t. History has not ended. And to Europe’s misfortune, it never will.
Sovereignty is not a gift. It’s earned—budget line by budget line, brigade by brigade. For decades, the U.S. has been Europe’s strategic insurer. But like any insurer tired of paying for others’ risks, it is demanding higher premiums. Europe can either pay up—or begin self-insuring.
Either way, the future of the West depends on whether Europe accepts the burdens that come with its blessings.
Churchill once said, “The price of greatness is responsibility.” In our time, the price of sovereignty is security. And the time to pay that price is now—not when the tanks reach the gates, but while there’s still time to keep them at bay.
This article published at :
No comments:
Post a Comment