The new EU defense climate after growing US isolationist rhetoric: How much does Europe need the US?

Introduction

As the United States shifts its focus toward other regions and retreats from its historically dominant role in European security, the EU is at a defining crossroads. The growing isolationist rhetoric emanating from Washington raises profound questions about Europe’s defense future and its reliance on transatlantic alliances. With the US engaging directly with Moscow to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine and sidelining European allies, there is increasing pressure on the EU to strengthen its defense capabilities and explore greater autonomy in military affairs. However, this path is paved with challenges, including internal fragmentation, economic constraints, and the geopolitical developments on the war in Ukraine. As geopolitical instability mounts, Europe must manage these complexities to establish a security architecture that not only ensures its strategic interests but also recalibrate its approach to Russia and China in the emerging post-war order. The outcome of these shifts will define Europe’s place in the global order for decades to come.

The current EU defense landscape faces uncertainty and requires recalibration due to the shifting foreign policy of the United States. Under President Donald Trump and even in the early stages of President Joe Biden’s term, the US has signaled a shift in its foreign policy priorities towards the Indo-Pacific region, raising concerns among European allies about their long-term security. For decades, the US has played a key role in European security through NATO and its military presence. However, now as the US redirects its focus, the EU is confronted with the reality of whether it can continue to rely on Washington for defense, especially regarding the potential resolution of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and whether it can continue to depend on Washington for its defense needs.

Meanwhile, the EU has initiated measures to bolster its defense capabilities, such as the European Defense Fund and Permanent Structured Cooperation mechanism, the Union remains heavily reliant on NATO military assets, where the US serves as the primary force. The lack of a cohesive European military structure has hindered European nations’ ability to act independently in high-intensity conflicts, despite the belated increase of defense spending. As the need for a more robust military response becomes critical, calls for enhanced military production, coordination, and strategic planning have intensified, respectively.

Trump’s rhetoric about Ukraine, combined with his engagement with Putin, raises concerns about the durability of NATO’s unity. European NATO members like Germany, France, and the UK continue to reaffirm their support for Ukraine, yet the prospect of a US pivot away from traditional security commitments poses risks to the alliance’s credibility and raison d’être. In response, European leaders will likely look for strengthening intra-NATO coordination, but any deepening US disengagement threatens to strain the long-term cohesion of the alliance.

The EU’s ability to maintain military support for Ukraine and enhance its own defense capabilities depends on its economic resilience. The ongoing war has worsened economic challenges within Europe, including high energy costs, inflation, and supply chain disruptions. Although efforts to develop domestic defense industries exist, bureaucratic inefficiencies and a lack of centralized procurement strategies present major hurdles. Recent EU sanctions targeting Russia’s defense sector signal a commitment to economic pressure, but ensuring the competitiveness and adequate funding of European defense industries stays essential.

As the geopolitical landscape evolves, the EU stands at a crossroads, facing tough challenges that require a reevaluation of its defense posture in response to shifting US foreign policy. The need for a unified and autonomous defense strategy grows increasingly urgent as Europe grapples with the complexities of regional and global security dynamics.

The future of EU’s defense landscape will likely unfold amid shifting geopolitical dynamics and the resolution of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. As negotiations between the United States and Russia take shape, European leaders are seeking ways to remain relevant and included in the process. However, Russian officials have expressed their preference to exclude European actors, arguing that the continued military support for Ukraine makes them obstacles to peace. This exclusion will likely challenge EU’s aspirations to position itself as a relevant geopolitical actor and reinforce perceptions of its diminished influence in shaping security outcomes.

Negotiations over Ukraine’s future will likely necessitate a fundamental recalibration of Europe’s security architecture, potentially shifting focus toward bilateral agreements and regional security arrangements that function alongside or even outside of NATO. The EU must advocate for a framework that balances collective defense with crisis response capabilities, but with Washington taking the lead in negotiations, European leaders may find their role increasingly constrained. The bloc faces the reality that its foreign policy has been aligned with US priorities, limiting its ability to act independently. The EU must now work toward asserting a more coherent foreign and defense policy that not only supports its Eastern European partners but also ensures its influence in shaping post-conflict security arrangements. Given the current context, the proposed European peacekeeping mission in Ukraine appears unfeasible. Instead, the EU must identify alternative diplomatic and security strategies that allow it to remain engaged in the peace process while avoiding direct military entanglements, also respecting the interests of all engaged stakeholders. Achieving this will require strong political coordination and will, economic alignment, and a clear vision for long-term security strategies, something that EU currently lacks.

In response to these challenges, Europe must prioritize building a more autonomous and capable defense posture. Increased investments in military technology, joint defense initiatives, and collaboration with non-EU partners such as the United Kingdom will be essential. Strengthening intelligence-sharing, research, and the development of advanced defense systems and even nuclear deterrence will help bolster EU’s strategic position in the short term. Over time, Europe may move toward a more integrated defense framework, potentially materializing as a European Defense Compact, which is an arrangement where likeminded nations pool military resources, set up centralized defense institutions, and even explore a European nuclear deterrent. While such an outcome remains a long-term prospect, it reflects the broader trend toward deeper security integration, despite political challenges tied to sovereignty concerns.

In summary, the future of the EU defense landscape centers on overcoming internal divisions and formulating a coherent foreign and security policy that aligns with its strategic interests. As Europe navigates an increasingly unpredictable multipolar world, it must seize opportunities to assert a more influential role in shaping the security order that emerges from the resolution of the Ukraine war. Enhancing military capabilities, ensuring economic resilience, and coordinating a unified defense strategy will be critical to securing European interests and maintaining stability in an increasingly unpredictable multipolar world.

The impact in response to the shifting focus of the United States will likely affect both the internal dynamics of the EU and its role in the broader international order. While the shift toward self-reliance in defense could have advantages in terms of strategic independence and geopolitical influence, it also brings with it considerable risks and challenges. These impacts will be felt in terms of European security, its relationship with NATO, economic considerations, and EU’s global geopolitical positioning.

The primary impact will be on Europe’s security. As the US reduces its military engagement in the region, particularly in terms of conventional forces and support for NATO’s collective defense framework, the EU will need to increase its defense spending and military capabilities to fill the gap. The EU will likely focus on strengthening its military deterrence, with particular emphasis on defense technologies and capabilities that are essential for modern security challenges, such as cyber defense, intelligence-sharing, and precision weaponry. The intensification of military cooperation between EU states could lead to a more unified and coherent defense posture that might better address emerging threats.

However, the process of building this new security architecture could be slow and fraught with difficulty. The EU’s internal fragmentation, especially between member states with differing economic priorities, defense needs, and strategic outlooks, could result in inefficiencies or uneven defense investments. This fragmentation could also undermine the EU’s ability to act quickly and decisively in the face of security challenges, especially if member states are unable to agree on shared military goals or defense policies. This will likely leave the EU vulnerable in the short term to geopolitical threats such as regional instability and/or non-traditional threats to security.

A more independent European defense framework would also have profound implications for NATO. The EU’s increasing push for autonomy in defense could challenge the traditional primacy of the US within the alliance. While NATO is still the cornerstone of European defense, a growing European defense capability could alter the balance of power within the alliance, especially if the EU develops a self-reliant defensive mechanism. This shift could lead to tensions between European and other NATO members. For example, if the EU starts to develop its own defense capabilities independently of NATO, the US may view this as undermining its influence and role, especially if it believes the EU is moving away from transatlantic cooperation. Despite these challenges, an independent EU defense framework could also bring benefits to NATO. A stronger European military capability would enable European allies to contribute more effectively to collective security efforts, potentially alleviating some of the burden on the US.

Economically, the creation of a more autonomous European defense mechanism would have both positive and negative consequences. On one hand, the EU could benefit from economies of scale and greater efficiencies in defense spending. Joint procurement, shared research and development, and the elimination of redundant military capabilities could reduce overall costs while enhancing Europe’s technological edge. On the other hand, these initiatives will require significant investment, and the financial burden may be difficult to bear, especially for economically challenged member-states. There will also be difficulties in reconciling the need for increased defense spending with EU’s financial constraints, particularly for countries that have been historically reluctant to increase defense outlays.

Moreover, the shifting focus of the US will likely affect EU’s global geopolitical influence. The EU has long been seen as an economic powerhouse but has struggled to assert itself as a global political or military actor. A reduced US security commitment will likely accelerate efforts toward European strategic autonomy, leading to increased defense spending, deeper military integration, and stronger Franco-German leadership in security matters, likely in concert with the UK. However, internal divisions between Atlanticist and sovereignty-focused states will likely impede rapid progress. NATO’s future in Europe would also be uncertain, with potential declines in US support forcing the EU to take on a greater defense burden. This could strengthen military cooperation within the block and lead to new regional security initiatives. Additionally, Europe will likely reconsider its stance on Russia, with some advocating diplomatic engagement while other EU states pushing for a hardline approach. Similarly, the EU’s stance toward China will evolve as it increasingly looks to assert its interests in the face of growing Chinese influence in global markets and international institutions. To compensate for the US shift, the EU may seek deeper partnerships with Japan, South Korea, and India while adopting a pragmatic stance on China to protect economic interests. Yet on the home front, increased nationalist movements and right-wing sentiments are calling for defense of sovereignty which will likely reshape EU’s internal political landscape.

Ultimately, Europe faces a defining moment, either it consolidates its defense and foreign affairs role or stays fragmented in response to shifting US priorities. The impact of Europe’s move toward defense autonomy will likely depend on its ability to overcome internal divisions, establish robust and coherent defense and foreign policies, and work out the practical and financial realities of joint defense initiatives and prospective strategic partnerships with other stakeholders.

The shifting US priorities pose significant risks for European defense, exposing longstanding vulnerabilities in military capability, strategic cohesion, and political will. With Washington reducing its commitment to European security, the EU and NATO face the challenge of addressing gaps that have historically been filled by US military power.

One of the most immediate risks is capability shortfalls. Many European states have underinvested in defense for decades, relying on US military presence, intelligence, and logistics and the Ukraine war depleted the arsenals and strategic reserves of those European countries supporting Ukraine’s war efforts. While some have notably increased defense spending, others remain underprepared to counter emerging threats. In addition, Europe’s military-industrial base remains fragmented, and efforts to develop indigenous defense capabilities will likely be slow and inefficient without stronger coordination.

Strategic disunity presents another major challenge. The EU lacks a unified defense doctrine, with stark divisions between countries advocating for strategic autonomy and those preferring reliance on NATO and the US. There are, however, strides in creating joint defense frameworks, yet there is still no integrated European military structure akin to NATO. Without significant coordination, the EU might end up with multiple defense programs, overlapping procurement efforts and uncoordinated military strategies that result in inefficiencies and wasted resources. If the US reduces its role, these divisions could widen, hampering collective decision-making and military readiness. NATO’s effectiveness would also be undermined if key members begin pursuing divergent defense strategies focused on their own national priorities rather than working collectively toward the greater security of the Union.

Economic constraints also limit Europe’s ability to respond. With high debt levels and slow growth in key EU economies, significantly increasing defense budgets may be politically difficult. Establishing a robust and capable military force would require immense investment in defense infrastructure, technology, and human capital. Also, the dependence on US technology and resources further complicates efforts to build independent European military capabilities, because transitioning away from US military systems would be costly and time-consuming. While European defense spending has been gradually increasing, it remains fragmented and relatively modest compared to the US. The massive, planned increase in additional defense spending over the next decade stands for a significant financial commitment that many EU member states, particularly those with weaker economies or fiscal constraints, will likely find difficult to meet. Additionally, the financial burden of joint defense projects will likely worsen internal tensions between countries with differing economic capabilities, leading to disagreements on funding and the prioritization of defense initiatives.

Also, the political landscape in Europe will likely shift as security concerns rise. Nationalist and populist movements may gain traction by criticizing EU-led defense initiatives and questioning the whole EU project, leading to reduced political support for collective security efforts. If trust in European defense structures erodes, member states may revert to bilateral or ad-hoc military agreements, weakening Europe’s ability to project power as a bloc and NATO’s relevance.

The US shift away from Europe, clear from the discussions at the Munchen Security Conference followed by US’ direct negotiations with Russia in Riyadh and its diminished emphasis on NATO’s role, signals a fundamental realignment of transatlantic security. The sidelining of European allies in discussions over Ukraine’s future stresses the continent’s fading influence in shaping its own security environment. As Washington and Moscow push for a resolution that prioritizes their strategic interests, European states are left scrambling to define a cohesive response. The post-Ukraine war order will inevitably need a new European security architecture, one that may involve a recalibrated NATO, greater EU-led defense initiatives, and even a structured engagement with Russia. Whether Europe emerges as a more autonomous geopolitical actor or remains dependent on US leadership will depend on its ability to unify and assert its strategic priorities in the face of shifting global power dynamics.