AI Takeaways
Summary of key points with the help of artificial intelligence
- Europe is facing its most serious political confrontation with the US in decades, triggered by Trump’s demand over Greenland.
- The crisis exposes the structural imbalance of the transatlantic alliance, long dominated by American military power.
- Europe’s dependence on NATO and US security guarantees has left it economically strong but strategically weak.
- Past European choices legitimised American unilateralism, limiting today’s room for resistance.
- Without economic reform, democratic legitimacy and strategic autonomy, Europe cannot act as a stabilising global power.
Europe appears to be heading toward its most serious confrontation with the United States in many years. The trigger is the way Donald Trump is demanding that Greenland be handed over to Washington.
Within European institutions, a competition of declarations of “determination” is unfolding, while all the tools available to the European Union are being examined in terms of an economic response. It is obvious, however, that no one is seriously contemplating an armed defence of Greenland.
For the first time, an alliance that has endured for 80 years now appears shaken. Europe finds itself awkwardly positioned, sensing that the ground is slipping from beneath its feet. This is not a disagreement over a single issue. It is a direct confrontation.
Disagreements exist — and persist — over Ukraine. Yet even there, voices within Europe align with Trump’s view that the war must somehow come to an end, even if that means recognising facts established on the battlefield.
Without the alliance between the US and Europe — and here this includes Britain, not only the EU — at a time when Russia and China are charting their own paths, the world risks sliding into chaos. Europe is the most uncomfortable actor in this picture: economically powerful, but lacking comparable military strength to the other poles.
Yet Europe is not without responsibility for this situation. And the problem is not new.
After the Second World War, it was Western European elites who sought American protection in the name of “fighting communism,” effectively turning the continent into a vast American military base. Atlanticism was not merely an ideology of the Cold War; it was a tangible surrender of sovereignty. Greenland may not have been handed over then, but wherever the US wanted to build a base, there was no serious objection.
Even when the EEC was created, it was conceived primarily as an economic union. Defence was delegated to NATO.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, when a new global security architecture was theoretically up for debate, Europe once again aligned itself with Washington — granting the US an even greater role as global enforcer. Europe would build the monetary union; the US would handle military interventions against whichever “bad actors” emerged. That was the deal in practice.
Today, European leaders protest against American “arbitrariness” and Trump’s coercive demands. Yet it was Europe that fully legitimised US arrogance when Washington unilaterally launched wars that destabilised entire regions, or acted alone in the name of the “war on terror.” In many cases, European governments openly supported or even participated.
Even now, when Europe claims to disagree with Trump over Ukraine, what it is effectively demanding is even more decisive US military engagement. Everyone knows that even if ReArm Europe is implemented, it will take time before the EU achieves real strategic autonomy.
Trump is undoubtedly changing the rules of the game. But the relationship within the West has always been unequal. The hegemon was always the United States, even when it spoke the language of “equal partners.” Now the hegemon has chosen to be more explicit, demanding what it believes it deserves after decades of guaranteeing Western security. As the cynic might say: it is too late for tears.
The international system is not governed by abstract rules or principles. Institutions function only when their decisions are broadly supported — otherwise they become irrelevant. The state of the United Nations makes that clear.
Does this mean Europe should stoically accept chaos? Certainly not. But if Europe wants a less chaotic world, it must assume the responsibility that corresponds to its weight. To do so, it must establish itself as a pole of stability.
That requires power — not merely higher military spending, especially when it comes at the expense of social cohesion. Above all, Europe needs a different economic model. The dominant neoliberal paradigm has run out of steam. Yet change is impossible under a deeply undemocratic decision-making system and in the absence of genuine European solidarity.
Europe must also demonstrate a different political posture — something it has failed to do. Neither in Ukraine nor in Gaza has it contributed meaningfully to peace. As a result, its credibility, especially in the Global South, has eroded.
A Europe without a compass for the future and facing a real leadership crisis cannot confront the United States on equal terms. In the eyes of Washington — regardless of who governs — Europe appears as the weaker partner, destined to accept faits accomplis.
Changing that reality will require far more than determined statements from Ursula von der Leyen.
