Last week, we examined how the United States has fallen short in supporting Ukraine by promoting a 28-point peace plan that leaves Ukraine cornered while granting Russia much of what it wants. The aggressor—the state responsible for the invasion—appears to be gaining the advantage, while the victim is left constrained with limited options.
Now, let’s consider another scenario: Europe turning its back on an America that has become an increasingly unpredictable ally. How would Europe measure up without U.S. military capabilities?
WHAT SUPPORT IS USA GIVING EUROPE?
The United States provides Europe with a significant share of its overall military security through a large and diverse forward presence. Around 80,000–100,000 U.S. troops are stationed or rotating through Europe, including reinforced deployments on NATO’s eastern flank since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. This presence includes brigade combat teams, armored units, aviation detachments, air defense systems such as Patriot batteries, and a wide network of bases and logistical hubs that allow the U.S. to rapidly project force across the continent.
Beyond ground forces, the U.S. contributes advanced air and naval capabilities that many European states cannot yet match. American air power in Europe provides surveillance, reconnaissance, and rapid-response capacity, while U.S. naval forces—including destroyers and occasional carrier strike group deployments—bolster maritime security in the North Atlantic, Mediterranean, and Baltic regions. These assets form a critical part of NATO’s deterrent posture, giving the alliance strategic depth and high-end capabilities that would otherwise be difficult to maintain.
The U.S. also supports Europe through continuous joint exercises, training programs, and long-term funding mechanisms like the European Deterrence Initiative, which enhances readiness and infrastructure across NATO territory. This combination of manpower, technology, and institutional commitment helps ensure Europe’s defense and stability. Without these contributions, Europe would face substantial capability gaps, particularly in air defense, logistics, intelligence, and rapid force deployment—areas where American military power currently plays an indispensable role.
WHO WILL CALL OUT TRUMP?
Before asking whether Europe can survive without Trump, it’s worth examining what happens to countries that openly challenge him. Has anyone actually stood up to Trump? China is the clearest example. Beijing pushed back and paid a steep price for it—enduring wave after wave of escalating tariffs, some climbing into triple-digit territory. Yet China held its ground until the situation became almost absurd, and eventually the two sides managed to de-escalate through diplomatic dialogue.
But the lesson is obvious: crossing Trump comes with real risks. His retaliation can take many forms—punitive tariffs, withholding weapons sales, freezing cooperation, or encouraging American institutions to distance themselves from the offending country. Which European leader is willing to take that gamble? A misstep could turn not just Trump, but potentially the entire United States, against the European bloc. And with an administration already viewed as deeply skeptical, if not outright hostile, toward Europe, does anyone really want to provoke a worsening of that attitude?
CAN EUROPE SURVIVE WITHOUT THE USA?
There have been growing calls—and even some concrete steps—to make Europe more independent. We’ve discussed this many times on the blog: it’s crucial that we stop relying on "Daddy" to take care of us whenever things get difficult. This so-called "peace plan" should have been a wake-up call for European leaders, showing just how easily Europe can be sidelined and bargained away to Russia when it suits others.
Yet Europe is still spinning its wheels, talking about the need to strengthen itself, invest more in defence, and build alternative economic partnerships that could sustain us if the U.S. decides to disengage. The European Commission has indeed been diversifying trade deals across Asia, Africa, and South America. But we can’t ignore the reality that much of Europe’s defence infrastructure, planning, and deterrence still depends heavily on U.S. capabilities. We need to move much faster in developing a European-led defence framework grounded firmly in European resources and technology.
But this cannot be done in a year or two. We need more factories producing essentials like TNT and ammunition, as well as the capacity to build larger systems—such as our own advanced fighter jets—that can rival American models without relying on U.S. technology.
MY OPINION
I’m just not sure we have the luxury of such a long, comfortable timeline. Europe’s leaders are slowly waking up from their slumber, but they are also constrained by public opinion. At a time when the threat from Russia is present yet largely invisible, and when economic pressure from unemployment and rising living costs is growing, many people still question the need for high defense spending. They point instead to crises in healthcare, rising poverty, or the simple fact that families are struggling—“Why pour money into defense when the kids are starving?”
Our biggest risk is failing to see Russian aggression as “real” or a genuine threat unless it involves open, kinetic warfare. For whatever reason, hybrid tactics worry us, but not enough to push us out of our sluggishness. I fear the public will only fully support stronger defense measures after a devastating attack—something like a large-scale terrorist incident causing heavy civilian casualties. And by that point, it may already be too late.
CONCLUSION
Europe can no longer afford hesitation. The U.S. is becoming a less reliable partner, Russia continues its hybrid aggression, and dependence has turned into a strategic weakness. If Europe wants to avoid being pressured, sidelined, or traded away in other powers’ dealings, it must treat strategic autonomy as an urgent, practical goal—not a distant aspiration.
Waiting for a major crisis or a devastating attack before acting would be catastrophic. The longer Europe delays building its own defence capacity and political resilience, the narrower its options become. Now is the moment to move decisively, strengthen unity, and invest in real capability—before events force Europe to act from a position of weakness rather than choice.
Comments
Post a Comment