Redefining Europe’s role in shifting global power equation

Dr Imran Khalid

The winds of uncertainty are sweeping through Europe as the continent grapples with the stark reality of a diminished U.S. commitment to its security. The handling of the Ukraine crisis by the Trump administration has rightly sent shockwaves through European capitals, unearthing a reality that policymakers have long feared but often failed to address head-on: the United States, under its current leadership, is no longer a reliable guarantor of European stability. This development has prompted European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to propose a comprehensive five-point strategy aimed at bolstering the continent’s defense capabilities – a kind of first step towards strategic autonomy. Yet, beyond military considerations, the fundamental challenge before Europe is how to redefine its role in an increasingly transactional world order.

The Trump administration’s justification for halting military aid to Ukraine – framed under the guise of prioritizing peace – has been met with widespread skepticism. Many European leaders fear that this move will only embolden Russia and pressure Ukraine into an untenable settlement. French President Macron has been particularly vocal in their criticism, asserting that withholding arms from Kyiv plays directly into Moscow’s hands. Meanwhile, Poland has also expressed frustration over Washington’s lack of consultation with European allies, highlighting a growing transatlantic rift. Similarly, British PM Kier Starmer has also repeatedly exhibited commitment to Ukraine. While Viktor Orban of Hungary is siding with Trump’s strategy on the Ukraine peace process, exposing the divergent responses among European allies.

Von der Leyen’s response is emblematic of a broader shift in European strategic thinking. The proposal to increase defense spending, relax debt regulations, and mobilize nearly 800 billion euros to fortify military capabilities marks a significant step towards reducing dependence on Washington. Yet, the challenge remains daunting. Military rearmament, even if pursued with unwavering determination, is a slow and costly process. The idea of European strategic autonomy has gained renewed traction, but its feasibility is questionable in the short term. Even if all necessary political, legal, and financial frameworks were swiftly put in place, it would take decades for the European Union to emerge as a global military actor capable of rivaling existing great powers. The costs of such an endeavor would be staggering, especially for economies already under strain.

Yet, the conversation around strategic autonomy should not be limited to military dimensions. A more pragmatic and immediate avenue for Europe to assert its independence lies in economic resilience. The EU’s heavy reliance on U.S. economic policies and supply chains leaves it vulnerable to the whims of Washington’s shifting priorities. If Europe is to manage the turbulent waters of the 21st century, it must invest in economic sovereignty through technological advancement and diversified supply chains. Digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence, semiconductors, and the green economy represent vital areas where the EU can secure greater autonomy without incurring prohibitive costs.

A critical element in this equation is China. Despite ideological differences, the economic synergy between Brussels and Beijing is undeniable. With bilateral trade amounting to $804 billion, the EU-China economic relationship is one of the most significant in the world. However, trade has stagnated since its record high of $847 billion in 2022, largely due to EU concerns over China’s technological ascendancy and Washington’s pressure to align with U.S. restrictions on Chinese investments. The Trump administration’s approach to transatlantic trade – characterized by tariffs, threats, and demands for economic concessions – has left the EU in a precarious position. On one hand, Brussels is expected to support Washington’s hardline stance against Beijing. On the other, it is treated as an adversary in trade disputes. This paradox is untenable.

There is a growing recognition in European policy circles that closer economic ties with China could provide a counterbalance to U.S. dominance. Unlike Washington, which prioritizes unilateralism, both Brussels and Beijing share a commitment to multilateralism and global governance reform. They have common ground on issues ranging from WTO restructuring to AI governance and climate change. A deeper economic partnership between the EU and China could serve as a hedge against Washington’s increasingly unpredictable policies. Of course, such a shift would not be without complications. Differences on human rights, market access, and security concerns will persist. However, strategic engagement, rather than alignment with Washington’s zero-sum calculus, would offer Europe greater leverage.

This is not to suggest that Europe should abandon its transatlantic ties. The United States remains a crucial partner, and NATO remains central to European security. But the era of blind reliance on Washington is over. Trump’s transactional diplomacy has laid bare the reality that alliances are now dictated by interests rather than shared values. Europe must adapt accordingly. A diversified strategy – one that enhances military preparedness while also securing economic independence – offers the best path forward.

Europe’s predicament is reminiscent of an empire in transition. For decades, the U.S. has maintained a hegemonic system with Europe at its core, exercising control over military, economic, and political domains. But hegemony is costly, and as Washington struggles under the weight of debt and domestic turmoil, it is looking to shift the burden onto its allies. This is the essence of Trump’s strategy: maintain dominance without paying for it. Europe, long accustomed to the security umbrella provided by the U.S., now faces the reality that those days are numbered.

In a striking speech at the European Parliament, renowned scholar Jeffrey Sachs described the Russia-Ukraine conflict as a proxy war instigated by the U.S. to maintain its strategic foothold. While such assessments may be contentious, they underscore the broader reality: Washington’s primary interest is not in European stability but in global power projection. Europe must recognize this and act accordingly.

The old transatlantic order is fading, and what replaces it depends on the choices Europe makes today. A reactionary approach – one that simply compensates for U.S. disengagement – will only prolong dependency. A proactive strategy, combining defense modernization with economic diversification, offers a genuine path to sovereignty. The coming years will determine whether Europe remains a subordinate player in Washington’s grand chessboard or whether it finally steps into its own as a geopolitical force. The stakes could not be higher.