Europe Without America’s Security Umbrella: Towards Strategic Autonomy or Fragmented Defence?

As the world anticipates a Trump-led ceasefire in the Russia-Ukraine war, Europe is caught within its strategic reckoning. Following a heated Oval Office exchange between President Trump and Ukraine’s Zelenskyy, along with the NSA chat leak, Trump has made it clear that Washington’s strategic calculus may no longer align with that of Europe, thereby awakening European leaders.

Illustration by The Geostrata

This diplomatic strain was further intensified with the imposition of tariffs on European goods like pharmaceuticals and semiconductors, making America’s ties with Europe more uncertain than ever. With uncertainty comes fear, and Europe, perhaps for the first time, is thinking of strategic autonomy in protecting the continent’s future. 

UNFOLDING THE SECURITY DILEMMA

Post–World War II, Europe was left in a devastating condition: 36.5 million people had died, including 19 million civilians, infant mortality rates had soared to 25 per cent, and millions of children were left orphaned.

In response to the escalating economic upheaval, the United States intervened and provided financial assistance to Europe, popularly known as the Marshall Plan.

In addition to economic aid, Europe had also been militarily exhausted; in this context, the U.S. facilitated the Brussels Treaty in 1948, which eventually led to the formation of the Western European Union.

Moreover, during this time, Britain, Canada, and the United States had already engaged in secret exploratory talks on security arrangements that could serve as an alternative to the United Nations, as the UN had become increasingly paralyzed due to the rapidly intensifying Cold War.

Thereafter, in March 1948, following a virtual communist coup d’état in Czechoslovakia in February, the three governments began discussions on a multilateral collective-defence framework designed to strengthen Western security and uphold democratic values. These discussions were later joined by France, the Low Countries, and Norway in April 1949, ultimately resulting in the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty.

Article 5 of the NATO talks about collective security, but with the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the return of Trump to power, global power alignments have changed significantly.

Now signalling the rise of the realist perspective, whereby each nation is more concerned with leveraging their economic and military power, even if it comes at the cost of disrupting traditional alliances.

This is precisely what has been pestering the European leaders. For years, Europe slept comfortably under America’s security blanket, but now it finds itself at a critical juncture. This transits more than just funding, as European countries move towards rebuilding their armed forces, and looking to a future wherein the United States will be less engaged both politically and security-wise, the key issue lies in how European security will be managed. 

THE LIMITS OF EUROPE'S EXISTING SECURITY ARCHITECTURE

Currently, Europe’s security architecture is not in sync with what the new international environment needs. Fuelling this infrastructural gap is the issue of internal differences among NATO members and varying interests between the EU and the US, thereby limiting the effectiveness of the treaty.  

Firstly, addressing the problem of growing internal political divergences, which have made reaching consensus a prolonged and protracted process, especially regarding presenting a unified stance on key international issues.

Hungary, for example, has repeatedly blocked EU statements and sanctions related to Ukraine; on the contrary, countries which are closer to Russia, like Poland and the Baltic states, have pushed for stronger action against Russia, thereby creating friction within the bloc.

Similarly, divisions over responses to Israel’s Gaza war have revealed differing priorities among member states, with some advocating for stronger condemnations while others choosing to be silent. Disagreements also revolve around issues like migration policy, where southern EU countries call for solidarity measures while northern countries resist deeper commitment, resulting in member countries moving forward without a uniform agreement.

Speaking of the uncertainty with U.S. support, it all started with Barack Obama’s “pivot to Asia,” which signalled a reduction in American focus on Europe. 

Adding more fuel to the fire was Joe Biden, who consistently ruled out Ukrainian NATO membership despite Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, prioritising avoidance of war with Moscow and focusing on China.

Donald Trump has further cemented this stance, indicating that he would not support Ukraine joining NATO and even hinting at a deal with Russia that would permanently leave Kyiv outside the alliance. 

EUROPEAN RESPONSE AND STRATEGIC AUTONOMY

While NATO and the EU are receiving most attention regarding the future of European security, the actual actors are the European capitals, with Germany positioned at the center of security developments on the continent.

The new German government has been explicit in its ambition that the country will have the strongest national armed forces in Europe, while continuing to collaborate with its partners through NATO, the EU, as well as via bilateral and mini-lateral agreements and arrangements.

Germany’s national focus gives us a hindsight of what is happening across Europe.  With growing awareness of the limitations of Europe’s existing security framework, countries are increasingly turning to a complex set of interconnected and overlapping ad hoc and sub-regional arrangements as platforms for security policy.

European leaders now meet in a wide range of groups-the E3 (on Iran), the E4, the E5, the Nordic-Baltic Eight (NB8), and other formats like the NB8++, the Joint Expeditionary Force, the Weimar Triangle (and the Weimar Plus), along with many other mini-lateral setups.

Many of these groups have been around for years or even decades, but they are becoming more important now as European countries look for alternatives beyond NATO. 

What Europe is lacking in terms of military is not exactly money or infrastructure, but clear leadership. As the U.S. has drifted away, there is no clarity on how the continent’s security governance should be structured and led. As the U.S. chooses to move away from the traditional NATO framework, there is a need to shape a new political architecture that fits the evolving European security landscape.

As seen in the recent convening of the ad hoc group of European leaders ahead of the U.S.-Russia summit, this type of format appears viable, as it can deliver fast and effective action while remaining consistent with Europe’s traditional focus on integration and consensus.

---

BY URJA

TEAM GEOSTRATA

info@thegeostrata.com