Can Europe decouple its economy and defense from US amid widening cracks

By Hamid Javadi

During his first term in office, US President Donald Trump unsuccessfully attempted to use a trade war to break the European Union, which he has described as a union of 27 free riders established “to screw the United States.”

European leaders managed to weather the storm not through sound policy decisions but by simply waiting out the Trump presidency, which was itself faltering under the weight of the COVID pandemic and other internal crises. The EU escaped relatively unscathed and the union remained largely united.

However, Trump’s second-term strategy appears to have found a more vulnerable target: The EU’s unity in the face of a massive security crisis.

By withdrawing support for Ukraine, Trump has engineered a situation that exposes deep cracks within the 27-nation bloc. As a cunning dealmaker with a keen eye for profit, he is poised to exploit those fissures.

For Trump, the EU is just another supranational entity – like the World Trade Organization and the World Health Organization – that he believes keeps exploiting America. A strong EU presents a major obstacle to his vision of “a great America,” which must be able to dominate the rest of the world.

Since taking office for the second term in January, his actions suggest a calculated effort to weaken EU institutions and the NATO military alliance founded in 1949 on the principle of so-called “collective defense.”

 Trump argues that the US has been footing the bill for this “security umbrella,” under which Europeans have rebuilt their economies from the ashes of World War II without having to worry about or spend disproportionately on defense matters.

That sense of security through collective defense has been significantly undermined by Trump’s decision to withdraw US military and intelligence support for Ukraine on terms that would benefit Moscow.

This has left the EU scrambling to fill the void. However, it is during tough times like these that cracks begin to surface in alliances. While some member states advocate for stronger collective action, others hesitate, wary of the economic and political costs. A fragmented EU is exactly what Trump desires.

Trump’s gambit could prove costly for the US as well. The stakes are high, but so is the potential payoff. A divided EU not only advances his immediate goals but also bolsters his narrative of America as a lone powerhouse, unshackled by multilateral commitments.

Trump has also reintroduced his trade war into the mix. This month, he announced 25 percent tariffs on EU steel, aluminum, cars, and agricultural products. In response, the EU retaliated with its own tariffs, targeting major American products such as Harley-Davidson motorcycles and jeans.

“We deeply regret this measure,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in a statement.

“Tariffs are taxes. They are bad for business, and even worse for consumers. These tariffs are disrupting supply chains. They bring uncertainty to the economy. Jobs are at stake. Prices will go up. In Europe and the United States. The European Union must act to protect consumers and business.”

The EU – an integrated single market of 450 million people – wants to send an unmistakable message to Trump that the bloc means business when it comes to defending its economic interests.

However, for the EU, the question is no longer simply how to respond to these measures, but how to redefine its role on the world stage as it wakes up to the idea of the US as an increasingly “unreliable partner.”

The Trump administration’s trade war is part of a broader strategy of economic nationalism. The tariffs, justified by the White House as necessary to protect “national security,” have sent shockwaves through European industries.

Europe’s initial response – a mix of retaliatory tariffs – was as much a reflection of its frustration as it was a calculated economic strategy. However, as the economic impacts begin to ripple through the EU, policymakers are increasingly recognizing the need for a more strategic, long-term approach.

The revival of trade agreements, such as the 2019 EU–Mercosur Association Agreement, highlights Europe’s determination to diversify its economic partnerships. This pact, which connects the EU with Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay, provides access to an estimated 400 million consumers and offers the bloc a pathway to reduce its reliance on US markets.

Additionally, the EU is increasingly reaching out to emerging markets in Asia. The European Commission president’s push for a free trade agreement with India is part of this strategy.

NATO at a crossroads

While tariffs dominate the headlines, the Trump administration’s stance on defense carries equally profound implications for transatlantic relations.

NATO has been unsettled by Trump’s unpredictable approach to collective defense. His reluctance to reaffirm the US “ironclad” commitment to Article 5 – the alliance’s mutual defense clause – has left European allies doubting the reliability of US support.

In remarks made in Warsaw last month, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth warned Europeans that American troops may not remain in Europe indefinitely. He said troop levels depend on the threat level, America’s strategic posture, and, most importantly, the extent to which European countries are willing and able to “step up.”

“That’s why our message is so stark to our European allies – now is the time to invest because you can’t assume that America’s presence will last forever,” he stressed.

Approximately 100,000 US personnel are currently stationed on the continent, serving as a deterrent against potential adversaries like Russia. A reduction – or complete withdrawal – of these forces would compel Europe to confront its own military limitations.

The possibility of restricted access to US-made weapons and surveillance systems adds another layer of complexity. NATO officials have raised alarms about the operational challenges posed by reduced intelligence-sharing and surveillance capabilities.

These concerns follow recent reports that the US is pausing its cyberattacks against Russia, a move many Europeans interpret as a signal of waning American commitment to countering the Kremlin.

In response to these developments, the concept of “strategic autonomy” has gained traction within the EU. Led by France and embraced by other member states, this vision calls for Europe to develop independent capabilities in defense, technology, and economic policy.

While the idea has been around for a while, recent events, including Trump’s row with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House, have lent it a sense of newfound urgency.

However, European leaders know all too well that the EU’s path to strategic autonomy is fraught with obstacles.

Data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) reveals a stark reality: NATO countries in Europe have more than doubled their arms imports between 2020 and 2024, with the US supplying a substantial 64 percent of these weapons.

This marks a sharp increase compared to the previous five-year period, indicating that Europe has been moving further away from achieving any semblance of strategic autonomy in defense.

This comes as European leaders grapple with the specter of an American retreat from its traditional role as Europe’s security anchor.

The prospect of Washington being eager to broker a ceasefire with Russia – potentially at Ukraine’s expense, and by extension Europe’s – has only added to these anxieties.

For the EU, the stakes could not be higher. Beyond potentially having to support Ukraine alone, the bloc faces the daunting task of securing its own defense.

Europe’s defense industry lacks the scale and sophistication to replace US military aid in the short term. Investments in advanced technologies, such as artificial intelligence and cybersecurity, are essential but require significant time and resources.

Moreover, the EU’s internal divisions will only compound efforts to present a united front. Eastern European states, traditionally more reliant on US security guarantees, remain wary of moving away from the transatlantic alliance.

Compounding Europe’s woes is the Trump administration’s pivot toward countering China. As Washington prioritizes blocking Beijing’s rise, the EU finds itself increasingly sidelined in US foreign policy.

This shift carries significant consequences for NATO. The alliance’s eastern flank, particularly countries bordering Russia, relies heavily on US support.

The challenges posed by US tariffs and strategic defense shifts represent a defining moment for the European Union. Experts say economic diversification, bolstered defense capabilities, and stronger partnerships with emerging powers are key to reducing dependence on the US.

However, achieving these goals will be far from easy, particularly in the short term.

European leaders must act quickly and address a pressing question: Is Europe ready to chart a path toward greater strategic autonomy, or will it remain tethered to an increasingly unpredictable transatlantic alliance?

Hamid Javadi is a senior Iranian journalist and commentator based in Tehran.

(The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of Press TV)

Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

www.presstv.co.uk