T he contradictions between the United States and the European Union became apparent once again when Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, reported a few days ago that he accidentally appeared on a closed Signal group chat of top U.S. executives discussing U.S. strikes against the Yemeni Houthis. In particular, the U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance wrote that he hates “bailing Europe out again”, referring to strikes against Houthis, which he considers the greatest threat to Europe. Goldberg’s post makes it clear that other members of the Trump administration share Vance’s sentiments as well. How did it happen that Europe, the main geopolitical ally of the United States, became the object of everyone’s displeasure?  

A new emerging reality after the U.S. elections

T he U.S. elections in November 2024 triggered the most significant geopolitical shifts in recent years. This is not only about America’s approach to resolving the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, but also about rebuilding its relations with allies. Donald Trump clearly and explicitly states that he will no longer provide security guarantees to the EU, and the EU must address this issue on its own. 

U.S. President Donald Trump said several times before and during his election campaign that if he came to power, he would resolve the Russian-Ukrainian conflict in a very short time. First it was said about 1 day, then 100 days or 6 months, and now there seems to be no mention of a specific date. However, even without a deadline, it is clear that Trump is at least interested in achieving a ceasefire, if only at the cost of certain concessions. Of course, it is Ukraine, not the U.S., that would be making these concessions. So, what is the EU’s concern in this case?

The key issue is that many in the European Union believe Russia-US bilateral talks are bypassing the EU. Leaders of several European countries have repeatedly emphasized that Europe should also be represented in these talks, as security issues related to Russia directly affect Europe itself. However, the U.S. administration continues to engage in unilateral negotiations, questioning Europe’s subjectivity.  

At the center of it all was the late February scandal in the Oval Office between the U.S. administration and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Several European leaders seized the moment to demonstrate their subjectivity. Just a day after the incident, Zelensky was already in London, where he was welcomed and even hugged by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. This was followed by a big meeting with European leaders, in which Zelensky also participated. At first glance, the outcomes seemed impressive: pledges of several thousand missiles and billions of euros in support, but this was spread over ten years, and instead, Ukraine received only political reassurances. According to some media reports, Zelensky was also advised to get along with Donald Trump as soon as possible. Following these events, a shift in Zelensky’s rhetoric became noticeable, reflecting a more constructive stance.     

Why and how couldn’t an alliance of 28 countries, along with the UK, replace the United States? Answering this question allows us to assess the role of the EU in the emerging new world order. 

The Militarization of the European Union. Is it too late? 

S ince the Second World War, the United States has played a leading role in ensuring security across various parts of the world, including Europe. During and after the Cold War, the United States established numerous military bases in Europe to counter the USSR and later Russia. Under this security umbrella, many European countries reduced their military spending, focusing instead on social, economic and other areas of development. This system remained effective for decades, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Trump’s return to politics altered the landscape.  

Trump shows that the US will no longer be that security umbrella and that European countries should start providing their own security.   

In this context, some trends are already emerging. Firstly, French President Emmanuel Macron continues to advocate for the creation of a European Army, which would enhance Europe’s strategic autonomy. France also proposed to extend its nuclear umbrella to other EU countries by deploying warheads within their territories. However, this idea is not yet widely spread. Another problem is potential relations with NATO. Since this new structure would have similar functions to NATO, it remains unclear how this cooperation will be organized. Additionally, establishing such a force is a long-term process that would require a sharp increase in the military budgets of European countries.    

Another trend is the increase in military budgets. This process began with the start of the Russian-Ukrainian war, but has accelerated with Trump’s return. Several continental European countries and the UK have already passed legislation to significantly boost military spending. However, challenges remain. First, this increase will take years and will not be able to contribute to solving today’s problems. Second, even if Germany were to triple its military budget today, it would still take a long time to develop an effective security system. 

The next trend that could be fatal for the European family is the splitting of the EU. Today some countries and leaders within the EU openly oppose the bloc’s common stance on current geopolitical challenges. First of all, we are talking about Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, as well as Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico. In recent years, we have repeatedly witnessed these two leaders blocking various decisions mainly aimed at supporting Ukraine. The right-wing tendencies observed within the EU could further deepen and jeopardize the very existence of the EU itself. 

Conclusion: A union striving for unity

A nalyzing all these, we can conclude that the EU’s influence on international geopolitical changes may decrease in the near future. Everything depends primarily on the European Union’s internal unity, how strong it is and how ready it is to fight common adversaries. EU societies may not be prepared to cut social security in favor of increased military spending, which could lead to a number of regime changes.