Make Europe Great Again? Is That Possible?

May 23, 2025

About the author

 

Europe's Known Past and Potential Future

The idea of rock-solid unity within the European Union has always been more myth than reality; one needs only to examine the ongoing debate about immigration and how it affects issues such as economic prosperity and human rights for an example of fractures.¹ Yet as 2025 rolls on, so, too, does genuine uncertainty about Europe's standing in the world.

 

This essay explores where Europe is positioned as the United States remains on an isolationist path, one which could include the abandonment of Europe. It also suggests that Trump, for all his faults, cannot be blamed alone for the precarious spot in which Europe finds itself. American decisions and actions made so far back that they predate Trump's entry into politics must be explored, as they provide a foundation for understanding how Europe has acquiesced to American hegemony for decades. Repeatedly carrying America's water, to borrow a cliché, and allowing the US to dominate security spending, came with costs, and under Trump, some bills are literally coming due.

 

Thus, Europe has no choice but to use America's retraction from the world as a positive moment; it needs to undertake security, economic, and other policies without deferring to Washington. Should it succeed, it might be possible to make Europe great again.

 

Challenges Briefly Summarized

The most obvious challenge: From a military standpoint, Europe is in dangerous waters. Newsweek, published in the US, recently noted that "decades of sidelining defense spending after the end of the Cold War … left (European countries) with yawning capability gaps on defense and a deep reliance on the US that has become increasingly unpalatable to the White House. There is no shying away from this from European officials, nor a desire to - there is a universal acceptance, privately and publicly, that the continent has been lamentably lax."²

 

Moreover, as it determines its next steps, Europe looks to the East and sees China, which it is not sure whether to call friend or foe,³ and looks to the West and sees the US no longer as a guaranteed ally. Neither view is good, but perhaps Europe can make the right combination of moves to not wither under the stress that comes with being pinched from East and West.

 

Although the US is not the only pressure point Europe feels, an examination of the US-European relationship is essential, because for roughly eight decades, they, with the US unmistakably in the driver's seat, defined the world order. Countries, be they big or small, had little choice but to get on and stay on the path defined by the West's leading economic power and its European allies. Adoption of the so-called (and still controversial) Washington Consensus, a combination of fiscal discipline, tax reform, interest rate liberalization, more secure property rights, increased spending on education, the privatization of state-run industries, market deregulation, and allowance for foreign direct investment, became a requirement for countries seeking Western aid. So, too, did a constant affirmation of Western-defined human rights. Europe, either as a willing accomplice or a duped ally, affirmed the necessity of the Washington Consensus.⁴ Whether it should have is an argument for political scientists and historians to undertake. But whatever Europe did (or didn't) do in the past isn't important today; what is important is that Europe should no longer feel any compulsion to follow Washington's lead on anything.

 

Blaming Trump Alone Is Wrong

Of course, it's convenient to focus solely on President Trump when looking at the fissures in the current US-EU relationship. His affinity for his Russian counterpart and willingness to advance peace talks without Ukraine shocks Europeans. One European scholar recently said the continent must grapple with the reality that the "assumptions of many decades have simply been blown away - and principally, the assumption that the US will underwrite Europe's security."⁵

 

"The US will underwrite Europe's security." Those words highlight the first reason why only blaming Trump for problems with the US-EU relationship is inadequate. Trump is spot on when he blasts multiple predecessors for refusing to call upon Europe to increase its contributions to NATO and European safety. In 2023, for example, the US earmarked 860 billion USD toward that effort, while all other participating states contributed roughly 440 billion USD.⁶ Viewed another way, the US covered two-thirds of all costs. Granted, raw math does not tell the real story because Trump has repeatedly criticized European nations for not spending at least two percent of their GDP on defense. Trump remains dissatisfied and now insists that a five percent threshold of GDP is more appropriate. While conversations about increasing expenditures have been had,⁷ there remains no firm indication of whether Europe can or will do what Trump wants.

 

Therefore, left unclear amid the nonstop rhetorical blasts emanating from the White House, not to mention the occupant's social media, is whether he's coaxing Europe into some kind of deal, likely involving tariffs, or if he actually intends to pull the US out of NATO.

 

Trump also cannot be held accountable for the reckless expansion of NATO that has taken place over the past three decades. NATO's unceasing need to press East is one of the topics covered by Noam Chomsky and Nathan J. Robinson in their 2024 book The Myth of American Idealism. The authors note that since the end of the Cold War, NATO forces have often acted without the endorsement of the United Nations and become supplicant to Washington's preferences about adding countries ever closer to Russia to the roster. Chomsky and Robinson summarize what can be judged as a dereliction of duty by stating, "NATO has engaged repeatedly in illegal and aggressive warfare." Respected international economist Jeffrey Sachs has added this: NATO expansion guaranteed a military conflict would occur at some point. As a result, "the war [between Russia and Ukraine] was provoked by the US in ways that leading US diplomats anticipated for decades in the lead-up to the war, meaning that the war could have been avoided…"⁸

 

The grim truth the West must accept is that refusing to leave NATO's borders where they were in the early 1990s has caused a devastating military conflict that will require billions of dollars to rebuild whatever Ukraine looks like once the war ends.

 

Let's also be honest that the hegemony the US had over the world began decades before Trump became president. Because of this hegemony, the US did what it wanted, where it wanted, and when it wanted. Using the myth of American exceptionalism to justify fostering unrest? Great idea! Look at how Latin America has benefited from such a "moral" cause. Working hand in glove with Europe, poach minerals and resources from colonized countries?⁹ Absolutely! The inability to modernize cripples some of those nations to this day. Muck up elections in another country? Why not! According to one US scholar, the US interfered in another country's elections at least 80 times between 1946 and 2000.¹⁰ That arrogance makes US anger directed at China, Iran, Russia, and any other nation about allegations of meddling in America's elections empty when the historical record is analyzed. Classify these actions, and others, with whatever negative descriptor you want, but remember that Trump is not responsible for any of them.

 

Yet not blaming Trump alone does not ignore that his rhetoric affirms he has no regard for dignity, humility, or respect. Much like a booby trap will explode when it's jostled, Trump doesn't care that what he says - not to mention how he says it - will cause an eruption of trouble somewhere across the globe. That means Europe can do better. What might it take to move ever further out of America's shadow and create a new dynamic for diplomacy, security, trade, and more?

 

Europe's Opportunity

Europe's first move will be the most challenging: make its collective military legitimate, which will require a significant allocation of resources. Sputnik noted in late March that Europe continues to run low on some of the raw materials needed to maintain support for Ukraine.¹¹ Left unstated was how the constant delivery of weaponry to Ukraine will stymie Europe's ability to focus on itself. And there's a real need to do this.

 

A white paper released in mid-March by the European Defense Agency announced in the first line that "Europe faces an acute and growing threat" from hostile actors "who are mobilizing their resources and using technology more effectively to achieve their objectives."¹² Calling for a "massive increase in European defense spending," the white paper reports that significant improvements in seven domains must occur in Europe before the end of this decade. The seven areas are: air/missile defense, artillery systems, ammunition and missiles, drones and counter-drone systems, military mobility, AI/quantum/cyber/electronic warfare, and critical infrastructure protection. As you might expect, there's no hint provided as to what such a list would cost, although the report calls upon EU member states to budget 800 billion EUR over the next four years for defense-related costs. Another two billion could be provided by the European Investment Bank.

 

In a related move, Germany's chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has outlined a significant increase to his country's defense spending, a move that German media described as a "XXL-sized" fiscal package.¹³ In the coming weeks, eyes will remain trained on the EU to see what strategies it will take to match Germany's commitments. In short, decoupling from the US means paying what it will take in order to ramp up defensive and offensive capabilities.

 

Next, a viable and credible leader - someone akin to former German Chancellor Angela Merkel - must step forward. By default, the heads of France and Germany will seemingly always be expected to carry that burden, but Foreign Policy has asked a provocative question: What if Poland assumes that mantle?¹⁴ Prime Minister Donald Tusk has hit what he thinks are the right notes in identifying what Europe must be in the future: committed to doing what it takes to ensure its own security, supporting all efforts at tackling climate change, securing each nation's borders, combating disinformation, and more.¹⁵

 

At the moment, the absence of a strong leader limits the EU's ability to go toe-to-toe with Trump. The rise of the far-right political movement further complicates this situation. We should remember the Alternative for Germany (AfD) which finished second in national elections last month, would welcome Germany exiting the EU.¹⁶ The size, power, and complexity of Germany means everything Merz says and does will be scrutinized. For what it's worth, he says he's ready to lead the continent.¹⁷

 

Third, Europe should reconsider its approach to China. During February's Munich Security Conference, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi reminded EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas that there was "no fundamental conflict of interest or geopolitical conflicts between China and the EU."¹⁸ True, but Europe has adopted a US-like approach in announcing significant tariffs against Chinese-produced goods. At the moment, avoiding anything that resembles a trade war with China must be paramount in Europe's thinking.

 

Electric vehicles have generated significant attention on both the European and Asian continents because of their quality and affordability, but Europe has been infected by American thinking that warns that Chinese-made cars carry real security risks. Other green technologies, areas where Beijing has a significant advantage over Europe, are also opportunities for Europe to show a willingness to import more from and cooperate more fully with China. Hints at a change in thinking were displayed in February, when European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen spoke at the EU Ambassadors Conference. There, she said, "We might also have to work with countries that are not like-minded but do share some of our interests. Because the basic principle of diplomacy in this new world is to keep our eyes on the goal. That means, finding common ground with partners to our mutual benefit - and accepting that on occasion we will have to agree to disagree."¹⁹

 

The three areas briefly mentioned above ought not be considered an exhaustive list. Any area in which Europe can improve carries an important reminder: Europe would do well by extending a hand of friendship to China and with other countries at a moment when headwinds brought on by Trump's fetish for tariffs and his incorrect belief that they will lead to a financial windfall for the US to hamper European growth.

 

Viewed another way, Trump appears willing to kick Europe to the curb as part of his "America first" philosophy, but China will not do that. Keeping its commitment to peaceful coexistence, mutual respect, and win-win cooperation in mind, Beijing wants better economic relations with Europe.

 

Europe chose to live in America's shadow for several decades. Now, and for however long Trumpist thinking dominates the US, Europe must find within itself the confidence to be more self-reliant. Assuming such a posture won't be easy; likewise, there's no guarantee that success will result. Doing nothing is not an option. Pining for days gone by will also be wasteful. Akin to a football player required to take a penalty kick for the first time, and in a match with the highest of stakes, Europe must put any fear aside and step forward, ready to achieve.

 

 

1. Kali Robinson and Diana Roy, "Europe's Migration Dilemma," Council on Foreign Relations, May 31, 2024, https://www.cfr.org/article/europes-migration-dilemma.

2. Ellie Cook and Matthew Tostevin, "Why Europe Can't Defend Itself Without Donald Trump," Newsweek, March 1, 2025, https://www.newsweek.com/europe-defense-spending-military-nato-donald-trump-2037104.

3. Mohammad Yousuf Ibrahimkhil, "Is China a Friend or Foe to Europe?," Ukrainian Policymaker 11 (December 2022): 43-48, https://www.ukrpolitic.com/11-6/.

4. Jean De Ruyt, "Europe and the 'New Washington Consensus,'" Covington, July 11, 2023, https://www.globalpolicywatch.com/2023/07/europe-and-the-new-washington-consensus/.

5. Chantal Da Silva, "As Trump Detonates Relationship with Ukraine, Europe Has No Fast Answer," NBC News, February 19, 2025, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/europe-trump-ukraine-russia-war-zelenskyy-putin-union-france-germany-rcna192758.

6. Marcus Lu, "Breaking Down 1.3 Trillion USD in NATO Defense Spending," Visual Capitalist, February 23, 2024, https://www.visualcapitalist.com/breaking-down-1-3t-in-nato-defense-spending/.

7. Olena Abramovych, "NATO Defense Ministers Discuss Trump's Suggested Increase in Spending to 5 Percent of GDP," Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, January 10, 2025, https://www.rferl.org/a/nato-defense-spending-trump-pistorius-spruds-pevkur/33270627.html.

8. Jeffrey D. Sachs, "The War in Ukraine Was Provoked - and Why That Matters to Achieve Peace," jeffsachs.org, May 23, 2023, https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/wgtgma5kj69pbpndjr4wf6aayhrszm.

9. Dillon Eldridge, "Exploitation of Natural Resources: A Dark Chapter in the History of the United States," Medium, May 11, 2023, https://medium.com/@dilloneldridgephotography/exploitation-of-natural-resources-a-dark-chapter-in-the-history-of-the-united-states-29ceb59d0e90.

10. "Database Tracks History of US Meddling in Foreign Elections," NPR, December 22, 2016, https://www.npr.org/2016/12/22/506625913/database-tracks-history-of-u-s-meddling-in-foreign-elections.

11.  "Europe's Military Industry Suffers from Lack of Raw Material amid Drive to Arm Ukraine," Sputnik, March 21, 2025, https://sputnikglobe.com/20250321/europes-military-industry-suffers-from-lack-of-raw-material-amid-drive-to-arm-ukraine-1121660993.html.

12. European Commission, JOINT WHITE PAPER for European Defence Readiness 2030, March 19, 2025, https://eda.europa.eu/news-and-events/news/2025/03/19/joint-white-paper-for-european-defence-readiness-2030.

13. "Fiscal 'Bazooka' for Defense, Infrastructure Approved by Germany MPs," France 24, March 19, 2025, https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20250319-fiscal-bazooka-for-defence-infrastructure-approved-by-germany-mps.

14. Bart M. J. Szewczyk, "Who Will Fill Europe's Leadership Vacuum?," Foreign Policy, July 19, 2024, https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/07/19/europe-eu-strategy-leadership-france-germany-poland-security-russia/.

15. Piotr Buras and Michal Matlak, "The Tusk Doctrine: How Does Poland Want to Lead Europe?," Review of Democracy, January 27, 2025, https://revdem.ceu.edu/2025/01/27/the-tusk-doctrine/.

16. Ben Knight, "Far-Right AfD Party Wants Germany to Leave the EU," DW, December 18, 2024, https://www.dw.com/en/far-right-afd-party-wants-germany-to-leave-the-eu/a-71093400.

17. Koen Verhelst, "Friedrich Merz Wants to Lead Europe on the Economy. Can He?," POLITICO, February 19, 2025, https://www.politico.eu/article/friedrich-merz-wants-to-lead-europe-on-the-economy-can-he/.

18. William Yang, "China Aims to Improve Ties with EU amid Transatlantic Tension," Voice of America, February 17, 2025, https://www.voanews.com/a/china-aims-to-improve-ties-with-eu-amid-transatlantic-tension/7977635.html.

19. Ursula von der Leyen, transcript of speech delivered at the EU Ambassadors Conference 2025, Brussels, February 4, 2025, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/hu/speech_25_404.

 

 

This article is from Vol. 55 issue of TI Observer (TIO), which examines Europe's future amid a turbulent global landscape, offering in-depth perspectives on its current challenges and exploring how Europe can rebuild its security capabilities, regain a competitive edge in science and technological development, and achieve strategic objectives. If you are interested in knowing more about the issue, please click here:

http://en.taiheinstitute.org/UpLoadFile/files/2025/4/30/10458855a69f087c-0.pdf

 

——————————————

ON TIMES WE FOCUS.

Should you have any questions, please contact us at public@taiheglobal.org