For decades, Europe has relied heavily on the United States for its security, assuming that Washington’s military umbrella was a given. However, a new reality is setting in—one where U.S. support is no longer guaranteed, and European leaders must rethink their approach to defense and geopolitical strategy.
The End of an Era: NATO Without the U.S.
The prospect of a NATO without U.S. military backing is alarming. While the alliance consists of 31 nations with over a million troops and modern weaponry, it lacks the decisive capabilities needed to deter or win a large-scale conflict. Without the U.S., Europe would be significantly weaker both in terms of military deterrence and strategic influence.
With Ukraine recently accepting a U.S.-proposed peace deal, the situation is now in Moscow’s hands. This leaves Europe even more vulnerable, with diminished leverage over the region’s security dynamics.
During the Cold War, U.S. troops stationed in Europe served as a deterrent against Soviet ambitions. However, their continued presence has also fostered complacency. Now, with discussions about potentially relocating American troops from Germany to Hungary, Europe is being forced to confront its own security shortcomings.
A Shifting U.S. Perspective on Europe
From Washington’s perspective—especially under former President Donald Trump—Europe is increasingly seen as a disruptor rather than a strategic partner. Decades of U.S. military support and funding have not been reciprocated in trade and economic policies, leading to growing frustration in Washington.
For years, European nations relied on bipartisan U.S. backing. But Trump’s approach changed the dynamic, using tariffs and strategic maneuvers to assert American dominance. If Trump was willing to challenge established allies like Canada, Europe may face similar treatment, particularly as it lacks the foresight and strategic positioning that countries like the UK under Keir Starmer are beginning to develop.
Some argue that if Europe realizes it can no longer depend on Washington, it will be forced to strengthen its own defense—potentially making the continent more resilient. However, this view overlooks the stark reality of Europe’s current security and economic weaknesses.
Europe’s Military Shortcomings
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has suggested that Europe is fully capable of handling a military or economic confrontation with Russia. However, the numbers suggest otherwise.
The U.S. has been central to European security since World War II, playing a key role in NATO’s creation and maintaining a military presence on the continent. As of July 2024, the U.S. had approximately 65,000 active-duty soldiers stationed in Europe, supported by advanced weaponry and defense systems. The largest contingents are in Germany (35,000 troops), Italy (12,000), and the UK (10,000), with 10,000 more rotating through Poland—NATO’s critical eastern flank against Russia.
While European NATO members possess thousands of aircraft, tanks, ships, and six aircraft carriers, their overall military capability remains inadequate. They lack the combat experience, firepower, and strategic depth that both the U.S. and Russia possess.
Russia, for instance, has 1.32 million active-duty soldiers, many of whom are battle-hardened from the war in Ukraine. Moscow also operates dozens of military bases across former Soviet states, maintaining a logistical advantage. Moreover, in nuclear capability, Europe is significantly outmatched. While France and the UK have a combined total of 500 nuclear warheads, Russia possesses approximately 6,000, and the U.S. holds around 5,000.
Defense Spending: A Persistent Gap
European nations have repeatedly failed to meet NATO’s 2% of GDP defense spending target. Even after three years of war in Ukraine, most EU member states still spend only 1.8% of GDP on defense—despite pledges to increase their budgets.
The real issue is not just funding but capability. Europe lacks the modern military technology needed for effective deterrence. Many of its warships lack advanced missile systems, its fighter jets are technologically inferior in electronic warfare, and its ground forces face ammunition shortages. Intelligence, space security, satellite capabilities, and cyber warfare are also areas where Europe lags behind.
For decades, Europe has relied on the American nuclear umbrella as its ultimate security guarantee. This has allowed European nations to prioritize economic growth over military readiness. However, with Washington signaling a shift in priorities, the continent must now confront the consequences of its long-standing dependency.
Germany’s Defense Overhaul: A New European Strategy?
Germany, historically hesitant to lead militarily due to its postwar legacy, is now attempting to reshape its defense posture. Chancellor-in-waiting Friedrich Merz has proposed constitutional changes to exempt defense spending from fiscal limits, paving the way for a €500 billion investment in infrastructure, energy, and military capabilities.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has also proposed raising additional funds to bolster the continent’s defense industry. However, these initiatives remain in their early stages and will take years to produce tangible results.
Despite Germany’s efforts, Europe lacks a unified defense strategy. Unlike Washington, which coordinates military efforts on a global scale, Europe remains fragmented, with stark differences in military capabilities between Western and Eastern European nations.
Energy Dependence and Strategic Vulnerability
One of Europe’s greatest security weaknesses is its reliance on imported energy. In 2023, EU nations spent $23 billion on Russian oil and gas—more than the $19.6 billion they provided to Ukraine in financial aid. Since the war began in 2022, Russia has earned nearly $1 trillion from energy exports, further strengthening its war economy.
While Europe has tried to transition to renewable energy, the shift has been slow and politically contentious. Germany’s decision to shut down nuclear power plants, for example, has proven to be a strategic misstep. Meanwhile, China and Russia continue to expand their energy production without the same environmental constraints.
Trump’s Strategic Shift: America First, Not the West First
Trump’s policy approach has been clear—his goal is to Make America Great Again, not the West. His administration viewed European security as a European problem, urging NATO allies to take on greater responsibility. Some analysts argue that Trump’s real strategy was to weaken Russia’s ties with China by forcing Europe to handle its own security.
Calls for a European nuclear deterrent have gained traction, with suggestions that France extend its nuclear protection to Germany and other EU members. Some believe Germany should fund a new European nuclear umbrella, given its economic strength. However, such proposals remain speculative and politically complex.
Can Europe Defend Itself Without the U.S.?
The reality is that Europe cannot currently defend itself without American support. Despite increased defense spending and renewed security initiatives, the continent remains unprepared for a large-scale military confrontation.
Ukraine has highlighted this weakness. President Volodymyr Zelensky has pushed European leaders for greater military support, arguing that Ukraine serves as a buffer against Russian expansionism. However, European nations have been reluctant to commit at the same level as the U.S.
Conclusion: A Wake-Up Call for Europe
Europe faces a defining moment. The era of relying on the U.S. for security is fading, and the continent must decide how to reshape its defense strategy. While increased spending and new military initiatives are steps in the right direction, they are not enough to close the capability gap with Russia—or to deter future conflicts.
Without a unified and comprehensive defense strategy, Europe risks being caught in strategic limbo, unable to fully defend itself or assert global influence. Whether Trump returns to the White House or not, Washington’s priorities have shifted. Europe must now take its own security seriously—or face the consequences of continued complacency.
@ Collins Chong Yew Keat
Foreign Affairs, Strategy, and Security Analyst
Universiti Malaya
