Where Is Europe Headed after the Oval Office Fallout?

The international order is falling to pieces. The problem: Europe is not a coherent actor, but rather a highly contradictory structural entity.

The European and North American democratic and capitalist alliance, through which the U.S. guaranteed the security of Europe and intermittently acted as the world’s neo-imperialist “global cop,” is coming to an end. NATO no longer plays a special role for Donald Trump in the new “predatory” capitalism. NATO looks like a public facade that has remained unchanged.

The new post-Western world order is emerging in eruptive surges. Trump’s regime is emitting shock waves that render European political leaders speechless. The upheaval rate is faster than the time it takes to toss out deeply ingrained ways of thinking. What we took for granted is disappearing. Time is racing by. JD Vance’s slanderous attack on European democracies in Munich was symbolic of new U.S. policy, as was the humiliation of Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office.

These political messages require no elaborate interpretation. The U.S. is handing Ukraine over to Vladimir Putin. They are denying Ukraine security guarantees. Therefore, Trump and Vance crudely distort the roles of perpetrator and victim by staging Zelenskyy as Putin: as a dictator who does not want the war to end and who gambles with nuclear war.

European politicians ramp up their messages of solidarity with Kyiv, a necessary move to bolster support for Ukraine in the face of severe humiliation. But that isn’t the answer. The situation in Ukraine remains precarious, even with the U.S. provision of $180 billion in aid and high-tech weapons. Ukraine’s greatest problem is its inability to recruit enough soldiers.

The EU now faces multiple dilemmas, and there are time constraints. Morally, it is now advisable to provide Ukraine with billions in aid. The EU must not follow Trump’s callous sacrifice of Ukraine. But what is its strategy? The notion that Ukraine needs to negotiate from a strong position is akin to an incantation driving out a sense of foreboding. Is the EU at risk of overstretching itself by taking on the role of the U.S.? In any case, a limit needs to be established in supporting Ukraine — the darkest of all scenarios would be Europe entering a war with Russia without the protective shield of the U.S.

Europe might have to replace 80,000 U.S. troops more quickly than expected if they are withdrawn. According to estimates by the German-based Kiel Institute for the World Economy, hundreds of billions are needed to further guarantee an effective standard deterrence. It will be complicated to mobilize these resources. Poland, Portugal, Lithuania and Luxembourg don’t share the same geopolitical fears or interests.

Concurrently, Europe must extricate itself from its tightly bound security dependency on the U.S. It is a complex process that encompasses everything from intelligence services to digital security. Militarization doesn’t just mean building a couple thousand tanks. It concerns the strategic goal of decoupling Europe from the U.S. It will be costly. Who will pay?

Trumpism is a fusion of extreme neo-liberalist thought with American isolationism and the Monroe Doctrine. No matter how unrefined, the international order that should be grounded in legal principles is falling to pieces — to the benefit of geopolitics reminiscent of the imperialist era of the late 19th century. Currently, a redivision of the world is emerging in which the U.S., China and Russia are seen as regional powers with zones of influence that should stay clear of each other. A sober analysis is advisable, rather than outpourings of moral outrage over each of Trump’s provocations.

Viewed more broadly, the question is what role Europe will play in the new world order. Will the EU remain a global player that endeavors to protect the remnants of the treaty system? Or will Europe itself become the object of imperial interests? Putin’s threats toward Georgia and the Baltics and Trump’s threat to Denmark over Greenland foreshadow this situation.

A Far-Right Populist Program?

A difficult question lies behind the balancing of moral concerns with pragmatic politics in supporting Ukraine. Is it more important to support Europe or Ukraine? In official rhetoric these two goals are equivalent because Ukraine safeguards our freedom. Yet it is more ambiguous and contradictory than that. Europe is not a coherent actor, but rather an intricate and contradictory structural entity. Homogenizing the EU has limits. What’s more, the EU is in a vulnerable situation. Far-right populism is on the rise.

So far, we have succeeded in containing the centrifugal forces of neo-nationalism within the solid, resilient structures of the EU. The fact that Matteo Salvini and Giorgia Meloni adjusted their anti-EU-rhetoric when they held power is a testament to this mechanism. The EU is stable because of common interests that bind its members together. But even that is not a forever rule. If militarization of the EU happens at the expense of public welfare, then a far-right populist program will be endorsed.

The destruction of the EU is the common goal of Putin and Trump. EU regulations of social media are a constant source of irritation for tech oligarchs. A fragmented Europe is easier to control, to manipulate. A nightmarish prospect glowers behind the potential collapse of Ukraine — the implosion of the EU. Naivety toward Russian imperialism is just as harmful as the morally driven overburdening of the EU.

The Federal Republic of Germany is economically, politically, and mentally more closely aligned with the U.S. than any other EU country. We might be steering toward the deepest crisis since 1949. Germany’s chancellor-in-waiting, Friedrich Merz, prefers to defend the debt brake rather than Europe. Another concern to contend with.