As summer unfolds across Europe, what should have been a season of diplomatic clarity and strategic resolve has instead revealed a troubling picture of geopolitical concession. With the United States once again at the helm of a hardline transatlantic approach under former President Donald Trump’s renewed influence, Europe finds itself in an uncomfortable position — conceding ground, paying premiums, and masking capitulation with diplomatic spin.
Trump’s Return and Europe’s Concessions
Despite initial fears of a full-scale rupture in transatlantic ties — particularly around NATO, Ukraine, and trade — European leaders now appear relieved that the worst has not materialized. Trump, who once branded NATO “obsolete,” threatened to end the Ukraine war in 24 hours, and labeled the EU a trade adversary, has so far refrained from dismantling the alliance. However, this relief comes at a cost.
To appease Washington and preempt Trump’s unpredictable policy shifts, European nations have yielded in three major arenas:
- Defence: Committing hundreds of billions in additional military spending to shore up NATO.
- Ukraine: Agreeing to purchase U.S.-made weapons for Kyiv’s continued war effort.
- Trade: Accepting the unilateral imposition of U.S. tariffs while simultaneously pledging more than $1.3 trillion in U.S. energy imports, arms deals, and investments in American industries.
The Illusion of Strategic Balance
European diplomats have sought to frame these concessions as pragmatic steps. They argue that:
- U.S. tariffs on other nations are even steeper.
- U.S. energy remains a necessary alternative to Russian supply.
- Many of the purchases were already embedded in NATO commitments.
- Headline figures of European investment are largely aspirational.
However, such justifications fail to conceal the underlying truth: Europe has been strong-armed into submission. Even European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen echoed American grievances, reinforcing the Trump narrative of zero-sum trade — a stunning concession from the EU’s top official.
The Power Gap and Structural Weakness
This episode has laid bare the EU’s enduring strategic vulnerabilities:
- Lack of unity: Fragmented national interests prevent a coordinated response to U.S. pressure.
- Military dependence: Europe still lacks the defense capability to independently support Ukraine or deter threats.
- Economic fragility: The bloc remains structurally dependent on the U.S. for energy security and trade stability.
Europe’s inability to mount a credible counterweight to U.S. demands stems from an overreliance on process-driven, technocratic governance rather than realpolitik tools like leverage, speed, and assertiveness.
An Uncertain Strategic Future
The humiliation of the current moment raises an existential question: Will Europe now take itself seriously as a unified geopolitical force, or will the trend of fragmentation and dependence deepen?
So far, the signs are discouraging:
- Common procurement in defense remains limited to national preferences.
- Industrial policy is regressing into state-centric models rather than advancing EU market integration.
- EU-wide financing tools, such as joint borrowing for defense, remain politically taboo.
Even the most significant development — Germany’s €600 billion five-year defense plan — is focused on national needs under a “Made for Germany” doctrine, rather than fostering a collective European security architecture.
A Call to Relearn the Lessons of Integration
Other countries are pursuing bilateral deals like the Lancaster House Agreement between the UK and France, designed to boost national standing rather than foster a pan-European defense framework. These moves represent missed opportunities to build a European security union from the ground up.
As founding EU father Jean Monnet once said, “Europe will be forged in crises and will be the sum of the solutions adopted for those crises.” Yet the bloc now risks proving the pessimism of his contemporary, Paul-Henri Spaak, who declared, “There are only two types of states in Europe: small states, and small states that have not yet realized that they are small.”
If the continent is to avoid future episodes of forced acquiescence, Europe’s leading nations must act decisively — embracing integration, investing in strategic autonomy, and asserting themselves not as a collection of small states, but as a unified force capable of shaping its own destiny.
