EDITOR'S CORNER: The World is On Fire.... But, Do We Realise It?

This week, it was quite hard to decide what to write about. The news cycle spins at a thousand stories a minute, mostly fueled by Trump nonsense. And most of it is so unbelievable that it does, indeed, appear as nonsense, making it difficult to separate what truly matters from what will be forgotten tomorrow.

But anyway, let’s try to focus on the big picture and ask ourselves a more important question: what does a Europe without America look like? Is this a moment that forces Europe to finally grow into itself, to survive and perhaps even thrive, or will it struggle, fall, and slowly sink without its longtime partner?

IS EUROPE STRONG, OR JUST DEPENDENT?

I have written in the past many times about how Europe is very much dependent on the US for defence in almost all aspects. We use their equipment and materiel; we buy weapons en masse from the USA. Our entire NATO infrastructure is built around the assumption that the US will be the strong one in charge. And now, in this fractured world, all of that stands on a precipice. It is being questioned, because we all share the same inner dialogue: can we trust the USA? Will they betray us to the Russians?

Why do we have these thoughts? After all, America is our biggest and oldest ally. They are the leaders of the free world, of the democratic nations, and also the strongest superpower on Earth. China and Russia pale in comparison. And therein lies the problem. The USA is now being led by a madman. What was once a strong and predictable global order has turned into a shambles of news stories, sudden threats, and impulsive declarations from every corner. In Europe, we no longer really know whether the USA is a friend or a foe. Or, indeed, a friend to whom!

This uncertainty is perhaps the most dangerous development of all. Alliances rely not just on power, but on trust and predictability, and both are now in short supply. Europe finds itself forced to confront uncomfortable questions it has long postponed: whether it can defend itself, whether it must redefine its role in the world, and whether the old assumptions that shaped the post-war order can survive in an age of chaos.

Let's have two arguments. One for why we need our Western partners, and one where we explore why we don't need US. 

WHY WE NEED AMERICA

I believe that most leaders in Europe understand just how dependent we are on America. We rely on them for defence, intelligence, and critical military capabilities. We also depend on their influence with larger powers such as China and Russia. While these belligerent actors do not get along particularly well with the USA—or even with each other—there has long been a shared assumption of stability. A mutual trust that, when Europe needs America, they will be there. That they will deter Russia from further conflict on the continent, and that American power is ultimately capable of pushing back those who threaten the existing order.

That assumption is now beginning to fray. The idea that American involvement is automatic, unconditional, and reliable can no longer be taken for granted. Statements that once would have been unthinkable are now casually floated, and long-standing commitments are treated as bargaining chips. For Europe, this introduces a level of strategic uncertainty that it has not had to confront in generations.

And so the question is no longer whether Europe prefers American leadership—it clearly does—but whether it can afford to rely on it as it once did. In a world where alliances are questioned and loyalties appear transactional, Europe may be forced to decide whether to remain comfortable in dependence, or to begin the difficult process of standing on its own.

THE REASONS TO KICK AMERICA TO THE CURB

There are, however, growing reasons to consider pushing America to the margins of Europe’s strategic thinking. Chief among them is unpredictability. An ally whose commitments change with election cycles, personalities, and late-night statements is no longer a stable foundation for continental security. Dependence on such a partner is not merely risky; it is dangerous. When deterrence relies on credibility, doubt alone is enough to weaken it, and Europe now operates under a permanent cloud of uncertainty about American intentions.

Another reason is that reliance has come at the cost of Europe’s own maturity. Decades of American protection have allowed European nations to delay hard choices, underinvest in defence, and avoid the political consequences of strategic autonomy. Outsourcing security may have been convenient, even rational, in a more stable world—but it has left Europe exposed in a fractured one. Continuing down this path risks locking Europe into permanent weakness, forever reacting to decisions made elsewhere, rather than shaping its own destiny.

MY OPINION

For a long time, I have believed that Trump is far more dangerous than Putin or Xi Jinping. Why is that? Those “traditional” dictators, however brutal or objectionable, are ultimately more predictable and more calculated than Trump. They rely on history, ideology, and long-term strategic planning to advance their vision of the world. We may strongly disagree with their goals, but we can at least make informed assessments about their intentions and future moves. Trump is fundamentally different.

The MAGA playbook is built around flooding the zone with gossip, outrage, and speculation. Every day brings a barrage of noise from the White House, to the point where truth and fiction blur together. This constant chaos is not accidental; it exhausts institutions, overwhelms the public, and erodes accountability. On top of that, Trump does not play by the established rules of politics or geopolitics. He acts impulsively, guided by personal grievance, self-interest, and whatever benefits him and his family the most. We have known for years that Trump openly admires authoritarian strongmen and aspires to wield power in the same unchecked, personalized way.

For Europe, this reality demands a long-term strategic response. An immediate rupture with the United States is neither realistic nor desirable, but continued dependence is no longer sustainable. Over the next five to ten years, Europe must steadily reduce its political, military, and economic reliance on an increasingly unstable American leadership. Strategic autonomy is no longer a theoretical ambition; it is a necessity. If democratic norms are to be preserved, Europe must prepare for a world in which the United States can no longer be assumed to be a reliable or principled partner.

CONCLUSION 

Europe can no longer take its security for granted. With resurgent spheres of influence, unpredictable global powers, and the possibility of an unreliable U.S., the rules of geopolitics are changing, and Europe must adapt.

Strategic autonomy is now essential. By strengthening its military, political, and economic capacity, Europe can protect its interests, reduce dependence on unstable partners, and face a world where it must increasingly rely on itself.