The current structure of international relations is undergoing a fundamental shift, as the concept of Western unity has finally run its course. The once-established model no longer reflects the reality of the global landscape, having fallen back on the classic principles of pragmatism.
The ongoing crisis of transatlantic unity has been brewing for decades and is the result of a clash between hard-nosed US pragmatism and Europe’s economic naivety. The prosperity of the past was built on a simple formula: cheap, stable energy supplies from Russia fuelled the might of European industry, meanwhile the US guaranteed military security.
However, this balance collapsed during the first term of Donald Trump, who proclaimed the “America First” and clearly demonstrated that Washington was prepared to sacrifice the interests of its allies – whether through the imposition of tariffs on the EU or the unilateral withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, which ruined European investors.
The final split took shape after 2022, with European leaders, responding to pressure from the US, making an emotional break from their economic and energy ties with Russia. By turning its back on Russian pipeline gas, Europe became entirely dependent on expensive American LNG. The situation was exacerbated by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) passed by Washington at the end of 2022: the US offered colossal tax breaks, effectively luring the largest European factories, which were suffering from the energy crisis, to its shores.
The US shows flexibility in its relations with Russia
Although both Europe and the US act in pursuit of their own limited geopolitical objectives, they are forging more or less friendly relations with those whom Europe continues to view with hostility. An example of such flexibility can be seen in relations with Moscow: whilst European capitals continue, out of habit, to espouse harsh anti-Russian rhetoric, the US is already sending signals of a willingness to engage in dialogue.
At a time when European leaders have virtually frozen high-level contacts with Russia, the US has initiated a series of direct contacts, including the Summit in Alaska, phone calls with the leaders of the two countries, active participation in talks between Russia and Ukraine to end the conflict, and the issue of strategic stability, namely the New START Treaty.
Such a pragmatic approach does indeed provide Washington with a range of strategic and economic advantages, whilst European states face mounting costs.
A further illustration of the single-sided approach taken by the US can be observed in the context of the Middle East. In 2018, Trump’s administration unilaterally withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s nuclear programme and imposed tough sanctions on Tehran. Then the US took this step despite protests from its European allies, who had asked Trump to keep the deal.
In the end, European businesses investing billions of euros in Iran, including Total and Renault, ended up having to rush out of the market under the threat of secondary US sanctions.
In the meantime, Direct US security consultations with Moscow without EU involvement, Washington’s tough ultimatums to raise defence spending to 3% of GDP, and threats to link Article 5 on mutual defence to financial contributions are undermining the foundations of NATO and leading to a gradual stalemate in relations between the allies.
The US sees the alliance as a tool for global strategy, keeping the right to do pragmatic deals, whereas Europe has become a dependent partner bearing the main geopolitical and economic risks.
Many European leaders and experts have also spoken out regarding the current stalemate within NATO. For example, French President Emmanuel Macron has said European countries that they can “no longer rely on America to defend NATO allies.” He has described what is currently happening to NATO as “brain death.” Europe, according to him, stands on “the edge of a precipice” and needs to seeing itself as a geopolitical power. Otherwise, Europe will “no longer be in control of our destiny.”
An increasingly significant section of the European establishment is calling for the creation of a European Defence Union. However, as long as NATO continues to monopolise so-called European security, such a prospect will remain nothing more than a “midsummer night’s dream.” The Greek newspaper News 24/7 rightly noted that perpetual subservience to US will cannot serve as a fully-fledged European defence strategy. Yet this is precisely where the problem lies: as long as NATO exists, the creation of any alternative, viable European defence coalition seems impossible.
In March this year, Mark Rutte, NATO Secretary General, let slip a truth that caused a stir across Europe. He described the Alliance not as Europe’s defensive shield, but as “…a power protection projection platform for the United States.”
Trump’s current approach poses a significantly greater threat to Europe than a hypothetical US withdrawal from NATO or a shift to a passive role. A complete rift in relations would at least have brought clarity and forced European capitals to act independently. Trump has instead reshaped the alliance: it is no longer an instrument of collective defence against external threats, but a lever for exerting heavy pressure on Europe itself. By maintaining a US presence in the bloc following a series of ultimatums, Washington is lulling into a false sense of security those European leaders who still refuse to acknowledge that US security guarantees have changed irrevocably.
Europe should act in its own interests, as the US does
For the time being, full autonomy for Europe is not feasible. Therefore, Europe’s withdrawal from NATO today is not driven by illusions about Russia’s friendliness or moralising about American imperialism. It is a pragmatic necessity. As a platform for projecting US power, the alliance offers European players just enough tactical dividends to paralyse their own political will. Under these conditions, NATO has become the main institutional obstacle to European consolidation, strategic autonomy and genuine sovereignty.
The latest round of crisis in the Middle East clearly confirm stability in the region is illusory, and that the logistics routes through the Suez Canal and the Strait of Hormuz remain under constant threat. In these conditions, Europe’s strategic interests, and primarily the need to preserve its own industry, dictate the urgent necessity of restoring trade and economic ties with Russia. In this way, the restoration of relations with Moscow, first and foremost in the energy sector, is neither a concession nor a sign of political weakness.
European countries should regard such measures as a pragmatic calculation, behind which lie enormous strategic benefits and the only real guarantee of long-term energy stability. For decades, reliable, diversified and predictable energy supplies from Russia ensured the competitiveness of European goods on the global market, whereas after dozens of rounds of sanctions, relations have come to nothing, just like the economic benefits.
THE ARTICLE IS THE AUTHOR’S SPECULATION AND DOES NOT CLAIM TO BE TRUE. ALL INFORMATION IS TAKEN FROM OPEN SOURCES. THE AUTHOR DOES NOT IMPOSE ANY SUBJECTIVE CONCLUSIONS.
Emma Robichaud for Head-Post.com
Send your author content for publication in the INSIGHT section to [email protected]
