2/23 – Geopolitical Analysis Piece

The past week has been one of the most uncomfortable and daunting for Europe since the end of the Cold War. Amid shifting alliances and escalating diplomatic tensions, the security architecture that has underpinned the continent for decades appears to be crumbling. With Ukraine seemingly abandoned, Russia on the verge of reintegration into global affairs, and a United States led by Donald Trump no longer providing assured support, Europe is left at a crossroads. Leaders across the continent have yet to fully grasp the gravity of the situation, but the urgency to adapt to a new world disorder has never been greater.

The seismic shifts in global diplomacy became evident last week in Riyadh, where the United States and Russia began official peace talks on February 18th. European leaders were notably absent, effectively sidelined from negotiations that will determine the fate of Ukraine and, potentially, the broader European security framework. Vice President J.D. Vance’s address at the Munich Security Conference only deepened European anxieties, as he dismissed Europe as weak and undemocratic, further highlighting the continent’s diminishing influence in transatlantic affairs.

Trump, meanwhile, has signaled a willingness to walk away from Ukraine entirely, blaming Kyiv for the war while labeling President Volodymyr Zelensky a dictator. His administration is reportedly considering a fragile ceasefire that would provide Ukraine with only limited security guarantees, further restricting its ability to defend itself against future Russian aggression.

Even more alarming for European leaders is Trump’s apparent eagerness to restore relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The long-standing U.S. policy of isolating Moscow appears to be unraveling, with Trump’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio openly discussing new economic and investment opportunities with Russia. This shift—seemingly without any strategic benefit to the United States—suggests a transactional foreign policy approach in which alliances and adversaries alike are subject to constant renegotiation.

NATO’s deterrence strategy has relied on the unshakeable assumption that an attack on one member state would trigger a collective response from all. That certainty is now in doubt. Trump’s actions raise legitimate concerns that in the event of Russian aggression against a Baltic state or another Eastern European nation, Washington’s support would be contingent on what Trump perceives as being in America’s immediate interest. The notion of NATO’s collective defense principle is now subject to Trump’s personal discretion, a reality that deeply unsettles European capitals.

Faced with this new existential threat, European leaders convened in Paris on February 17th but failed to produce a unified strategy. Three years after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, European military spending remains insufficient, and internal divisions continue to paralyze coordinated action. The European Union’s traditional reliance on treaties and multilateral agreements now appears dangerously outdated in a world where brute force and rapid decision-making are shaping international relations.

The reality is stark. Europe is a continent with a stagnant economy, an aging population, and a military apparatus incapable of standing alone. It is increasingly vulnerable to external threats, whether through direct military confrontation, disinformation campaigns, or economic coercion. If a Baltic state were to face Russian aggression, what practical steps could Europe take? As of now, no clear answer exists.

The crisis has exposed the urgent need for Europe to redefine its approach to security and defense. The continent must not only confront adversaries like Russia but also recalibrate its relationship with the United States, recognizing that Trump’s vision of foreign policy is not an aberration but a possible long-term shift. Europe’s first priority should be establishing a single, authoritative envoy to engage with the U.S., Russia, and Ukraine. Europe needs a way to negotiate and participate in talks with these parties in a legitimate and respected manner. It must also consider tighter economic sanctions against Moscow, even if Washington loosens its own restrictions.

A bolder move would be the unilateral appropriation of the €210 billion in Russian assets currently frozen in European banks. These funds could be used to sustain Ukraine’s defense as American financial support wanes. However, short-term measures alone will not suffice. Europe must commit to a comprehensive military buildup, investing in logistics, surveillance, and nuclear deterrence. France and Britain, the continent’s two nuclear-armed states, must begin discussions on how their arsenals could be used to shield the broader European Union.

Such a shift will require a radical rethinking of European fiscal policy. Defense spending must rise to Cold War levels, reaching 4-5% of GDP. This will necessitate difficult political choices, including cuts to Europe’s vast social welfare programs. As former German Chancellor Angela Merkel famously observed, Europe comprises 7% of the world’s population, accounts for 25% of its GDP, yet consumes 50% of global social spending. Maintaining such an economic model while confronting serious security threats is no longer viable.

Trump’s foreign policy has redefined America’s global role, moving away from the consensus-driven, multilateral approach that has been in place since 1945. In its place is a transactional worldview that prioritizes immediate gains over long-term stability. Nowhere is this shift more evident than in the administration’s approach to Ukraine. By blaming Kyiv for the war and labeling its leader a dictator, Trump has echoed Kremlin rhetoric, creating an opening for Moscow to reassert its influence.

Beyond Ukraine, Trump’s foreign policy moves have extended to dismantling key U.S. institutions that have historically played a role in global stability. The dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has frozen billions of dollars in foreign assistance, allowing rivals like China to expand their influence in regions once reliant on American aid. Meanwhile, Trump’s musings about acquiring foreign territories, from Greenland to the Panama Canal, have raised concerns about an expansionist American foreign policy.

The implications of Trump’s foreign policy go beyond Europe. His transactional approach threatens to undermine long-standing alliances across the Middle East, Asia, and Latin America. His administration’s proposal to relocate Palestinians from Gaza while asserting U.S. control over the enclave marks a dramatic departure from decades of American diplomatic efforts aimed at a two-state solution.

Former national security officials and foreign policy analysts widely agree that these shifts will have long-term consequences, making it difficult for future U.S. administrations to restore trust among allies. The reliability and predictability of American leadership—a cornerstone of global stability since World War II—is on track to be deeply eroded.

For Europe, this moment of crisis presents both a challenge and an opportunity. The continent can no longer afford to be complacent, nor can it continue to operate under the assumption that the old transatlantic order will be restored. Europe must seize this moment to forge a new strategic identity—one that prioritizes military self-reliance, economic resilience, and diplomatic assertiveness.

The reality is that NATO, once considered the world’s most successful military alliance, is no longer the unshakable force it once was. Trump’s second term has made it clear that the post-World War II era is over, and the European continent must adapt accordingly. The collapse of the U.S.-led postwar order signifies a shift toward a multipolar world where great powers and regional heavyweights—China, Russia, the U.S.—are now more emboldened to act in their own strategic interests.

With the rejection of “international norms” and realpolitik driving global affairs, Europe must recognize that it is too fragmented to compete alone. If it hopes to remain relevant and secure in this new geopolitical era, it must rapidly build a cohesive and independent defense and security strategy. Cooperation within the EU is no longer a luxury but a necessity, as the world reverts to an era where power, not principles, dictates international relations. The question is no longer whether Europe can rely on America; it is whether Europe is willing to take the necessary steps to secure its own future before it is too late.