On March 5, French government spokesperson Sophie Primas stated that French President Emmanuel Macron, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer were considering a joint visit to the United States, with the visit expected to be completed “in the short term.” If this plan materializes, it will mark the second time these three European leaders visit the White House within a short period following Donald Trump’s re-election as president. Previously, Macron and Starmer had attempted to persuade Trump in person to value the traditional transatlantic relationship and maintain U.S.-Europe alignment on the Russia-Ukraine war, but with little success. Zelensky’s visit to the White House, however, turned into a diplomatic disaster, with both sides engaging in heated arguments that ended on bad terms. Zelensky’s delegation even left the White House hungry, as they were asked to leave without partaking in the lavish luncheon prepared by their host.
The three White House summits marked another diplomatic “Waterloo” for Europe after its “darkest moment” at the Munich Security Conference. At Munich, European leaders were publicly humiliated by U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance and were shocked to witness the U.S. engaging in high-level diplomacy with Russia. Despite their dismay, some still held onto illusions. However, after experiencing Trump’s stern lecturing at the White House, European leaders have become much more pragmatic and realistic. Therefore, before seeking another visit to the White House, France and the UK have adjusted their previous stances on the Russia-Ukraine war, now supporting ceasefire negotiations, while Ukraine has obediently stated its willingness to transition from war to peace “under U.S. leadership” and sign a “minerals-for-security” agreement with the U.S.
European leaders are striving to repair the U.S.-Europe relationship, which has been severely fractured by “Trump’s new policies,” in an effort to preserve “peace under American rule.” They aim to ensure continued transatlantic cooperation through three key ties: traditional values, the transatlantic political alliance, and the NATO military alliance, while maintaining a shared destiny, shared interests, and shared moral values. However, Trump 2.0 is likely to bring more sadness, harm, and worries to his European allies. To some extent, European countries have realized that they must adapt to the historical turning point of a “the profound changes unseen in a century.” They must accept the “historical end” of the U.S.-Europe partnership and quickly achieve strategic awakening, gradually breaking free from their strategic dependence on the U.S. while strengthening strategic autonomy, diplomatic independence, military self-reliance, and strategic self-preservation.
Europe’s strategic awakening follows an undeniable historical and practical logic. First, no powerful nation remains dominant forever, no absolute center of power is eternal, and no strong ally is unbreakable. This is a lesson from thousands of years of human history, frequently discussed by Western politicians, and confirmed by more than ten shifts in global power centers since the 1500s.
Moreover, under “Trumpism,” the U.S. is irreversibly shifting toward a new era of isolationism, mercantilism, and Monroe Doctrine-style policies, focusing on self-revolution, self-redemption, and making itself “great again.” It has grown weary of acting as the world’s leader, fulfilling international obligations, bearing multilateral responsibilities, and financing global initiatives. The U.S. is even reluctant to continue practicing the evangelical “Messianic” spirit of benevolence and global salvation. Europe must recognize that after a century-long alliance, the U.S. and Europe are now at a crossroads where separation is inevitable. More precisely, the U.S. is actively dismantling the global order and rule-based system it built and sustained for a century—without caring about Europe’s grievances or how it complains tearfully about the break-up.
Europe must now consider how to end its strategic dependence on the U.S. Historically, the U.S. was a “bastard child” of European civilization on the North American continent. However, in the process of breaking away from its colonial “sinful womb,” this “illegitimate offspring” unexpectedly became Europe’s ultimate lifeline and savior. Since its entry into World War I and subsequent victory, the U.S. has fought increasingly stronger wars, achieving an unprecedented level of global hegemony. It has continuously shaped Europe’s fate: without strong American leadership and generous support, Europe could not have swiftly defeated the Axis powers, rapidly recovered from the devastation of two world wars, collapsed the Soviet-led Cold War adversaries, or maintained its dominance in Western education, science, technology, economy, and soft power.
A century of dependence has conditioned Europe into a “fatherly” or “motherly” psychological attachment to the U.S., fostering both admiration and reliance. Despite frequent complaints, disputes, and protests against this overbearing “patriarch,” Europe remains unable to break free. However, the time has come for Europe to awaken from this dependence and embrace strategic independence.
Strategic Autonomy: Europe’s Honor and Dream
Strategic autonomy is not only Europe’s honor and dream, but also one of its primary goals in the pursuit of unity. Historically, Europe has long been unable to act independently due to its internal fragmentation, where numerous feudal states coexisted. Even after the establishment of the Westphalian system, Europe still found itself entangled in two world wars. After World War II, Europe was further drawn into the grand geopolitical game of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. Being weak and vulnerable, Europe had to rely on the protection of a strong United States to ensure its security and development.
With the collapse of the Cold War order and the disappearance of the Soviet Union, Europe’s dream of unification became increasingly tangible. Through five rounds of EU enlargement, most European countries were brought under the same umbrella. Simultaneously, NATO’s continued eastward expansion pushed Europe’s security frontiers deep into Russia’s traditional strategic heartland.
As the 21st century began, Europe’s strategic environment underwent a dramatic improvement. It not only emerged from the historical shadow of the Soviet threat but also witnessed new developments in the United States—where growth stagnated, and signs of contraction and decline appeared. Thus, strategic autonomy became a new European aspiration, gaining widespread support from nations and citizens alike. However, the U.S. establishment, particularly represented by the Democratic Party, has continued efforts to keep Europe under White House leadership through shared values, traditional alliances, and military partnerships. To achieve this, the U.S. carefully orchestrated the “Ukraine trap,” using Russia as a “scarecrow” to frighten many small European nations, thereby forcing them to remain under the American hegemonic umbrella and continue following Washington’s lead.
Trump’s new policies actually present Europe with a historic opportunity and a strategic window to break free and establish true self-reliance. However, Europe still lacks the necessary strategic confidence and preparedness. It continues to seek leverage from the United States and, in some cases, even prefers to remain under American strategic protection. The inevitable outcome of this approach is that Europe will eventually find itself standing on shaky ground.
Strategic Autonomy: Independent Path Internally, Diplomatic Independence Externally
Strategic autonomy means choosing an independent path domestically and achieving diplomatic independence externally. Europe has historically been the birthplace of modern international relations and diplomacy, serving as both the intellectual foundation and early model for American diplomacy. As a master of geopolitical maneuvering, Europe has long been a dominant player in global affairs.
However, diplomacy must be backed by national power—particularly economic and military strength. This fundamental rule has often left Europe, despite its past glory, with a form of “crippled diplomacy.” With the exception of a few cases such as France, most European countries have historically aligned themselves with U.S. policy, often adhering to White House directives. They have been required to continuously coordinate their policies and even political stances with Washington to ensure transatlantic alignment, thereby creating a synchronized diplomatic chorus.
After the Cold War, the acceleration of global multipolarity provided Europe with greater diplomatic space and maneuverability. European nations, based on their own interests or the collective interests of the EU, have at times pursued diplomatic policies that diverged from or even opposed those of the United States. This growing diplomatic independence, driven by strategic autonomy, has become a concrete manifestation of Europe’s pursuit of unity and strength. However, it has also inevitably become the primary source of conflict, disagreement, and friction between Europe and the U.S.
During Trump’s first term (Trump 1.0), diplomatic disputes between the U.S. and Europe emerged, particularly over issues related to values. However, these differences were quickly mended during Joe Biden’s administration. With Trump’s return to power (Trump 2.0), the transatlantic diplomatic relationship has once again diverged—not only in ideology but also in paradigm. Disputes over trade wars and the Russia-Ukraine conflict have further widened the gap, to the point where Europe and the U.S. are now moving in entirely different directions. Ironically, this divergence will, in turn, reinforce Europe’s diplomatic independence.
Europe’s Greatest Crisis: The Security Dilemma
Europe’s most pressing crisis is its security dilemma—specifically, whether it can establish an independent and powerful military force outside the NATO framework and achieve military self-sufficiency, including the ability to confront its traditional adversary, Russia, on its own.
After the Cold War, Europe embraced NATO, an alliance centered around the United States. The essence of this arrangement was to leverage American military power to neutralize the Soviet threat, prevent Germany’s resurgence, and ultimately avoid another world war.
For more than half a century, the U.S. has maintained a strong military presence in Europe, with numerous bases and a large troop deployment. Washington has also consistently covered over half of NATO’s defense budget, with its military expenditures exceeding 3% of its GDP annually. This long-standing reliance on American security guarantees has not only led Europe to neglect its own military capabilities but has also become an unsustainable burden for the U.S.
With Trump’s Return, NATO’s Easy Days Under U.S. Protection Are Over
With Trump back in office, NATO can no longer enjoy the luxury of relying on the U.S. security umbrella. The alliance must now assume the primary responsibility for its own defense. During his first term, Trump pressured NATO members to increase their military spending to 2% of GDP. In his second term, he is now demanding it be doubled to 5%, significantly reducing the burden on the U.S.
For Europe, achieving military independence and self-reliance has become an urgent reality. In terms of conventional troop numbers, weaponry, strategic capabilities, and defense industry strength, Europe remains far behind the U.S. in the short term. It may even struggle to counterbalance Russia. As the Trump administration plans to abandon Ukraine, and Europe is forced to prepare for defending Ukraine—or even itself—alone, serious questions arise: How quickly can the EU establish its own military force? Can it rely on the nuclear umbrella provided by the UK and France?
The European “Rearmament” Plan
On March 4, in response to the U.S. cutting off weapons, intelligence support, and possibly even satellite links to Ukraine, the European Union announced a plan to raise approximately €800 billion to “rearm Europe” and establish a secure and resilient defense framework. Under Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Germany—after nearly 70 years of pacifism—has doubled its defense budget, surpassing 2% of GDP. The newly elected government coalition, led by Friedrich Merz, is set to propose a bill in the German Parliament next week to establish an extra-budgetary fund of €500 billion under the guise of infrastructure investment, but ultimately aimed at further increasing defense expenditures.
As founding members of NATO and permanent members of the UN Security Council, Britain and France are stepping up as Europe’s natural leaders. While attempting to salvage the crumbling U.S.-Europe geopolitical marriage, they are also actively strategizing Europe’s post-“U.S. withdrawal” defense framework. Discussions include “nuclear sharing” and the potential formation of a European “security force” to support Ukraine.
Observers suggest that the EU and its member states are about to enter an unprecedented period of multilateral and bilateral security negotiations, scrambling to fill the “three-dimensional vacuum” left by the U.S. abandoning its NATO leadership responsibilities—or potentially withdrawing from NATO altogether. This vacuum includes historical disillusionment, present uncertainty, and psychological panic over the future.
Trump 2.0: A Long-Term Shift?
Theoretically, Trump’s second term could last eight years, and “Trumpism” might persist even longer. In just two months since his return, Trump has already withdrawn from agreements, abandoned allies, and broken diplomatic trust—all with strong momentum that is likely to continue and expand.
This trajectory threatens to overturn the entire post-WWII global security system, international governance framework, and global order. Almost overnight, the United States—once Europe’s unwavering ally and “big brother”—has morphed into a familiar stranger, a tariff war instigator, an ideological adversary, and even a strategic rival.
Meanwhile, Europe is left to navigate an uncertain path alone, and the “Western world” as we know it appears to have fractured into two distinct entities: the U.S. and Europe. The EU was completely unprepared for such a historic and profound transformation in transatlantic relations. European Council President Ursula von der Leyen even described it as a “watershed moment.”
The Inevitable U.S.-Europe Split
The transatlantic relationship is now undergoing systematic dismantling, revision, and restructuring. European leaders are investing enormous efforts in trying to restore the relationship to normalcy. However, the ideological and economic differences between the U.S. and Europe have become so vast that they are likely to drift further apart, potentially reaching the point of no return.
As history has shown, long periods of unity are followed by division, and long periods of division eventually lead to reunification. This historical cycle is playing out once again.
Prof. Ma is the Dean of the Institute of Mediterranean Studies (ISMR) at Zhejiang International Studies University in Hangzhou. He specializes in international politics, particularly Islam and Middle Eastern affairs. He previously worked as a senior Xinhua correspondent in Kuwait, Palestine, and Iraq.
