With Donald Trump back in the White House, the mood in Europe is grim. The Trump pill they were dreading —but also preparing for—has been forced down their throats finally. Europe needs to get its act together and re-invent its strengths.
Gone are the ifs and buts, the time is now. But the perennial question remains—how?
Has Europe lost America?
European leaders met in Budapest the day after the US presidential election results were announced. At the meeting, President of the European Council, Charles Michel emphasised once again that while the US remains an essential ally, Europe must build its own strength and sovereignty. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, numerous discussions have taken place around creating a stable European order. The EU—a complex blend of 27 states, that works as a federation and confederation, with diverse foreign policies and responses to Russia’s grinding war in the East—faces a future that Europe itself must shape. One that is not reliant on the US, Russia, or China.
With Trump pushing Europe towards self-reliance, Poland’s PM, Donald Tusk, highlighted the opportunity in this challenge, reiterating that the ‘Trump pill’ will serve as a much-needed wake-up call for Europe to make painful but necessary structural changes.
However, this does not mean Europe has lost American support. Global dynamics of the CRINK (China, Russia, Iran, North Korea) axis limit drastic shifts in US foreign policy, and Trump may seek ways to balance the Ukraine conflict and steer it towards negotiation. To secure US backing for Ukraine, Europe must show commitment to NATO by meeting its 2 per cent GDP target. Many of its largest economies have been slow to bolster their security investments.
Also read: Why you shouldn’t count on Donald Trump to end the wars
Is Trump-proofing all rhetoric?
In the past three years, Europe has undergone changes it neither anticipated nor wanted. It has successfully diversified away from its reliance on Russian energy, significantly reducing Russia’s energy revenues. However, this shift is just the beginning of what is required for true transformation. To achieve real change, Europe must develop the political will to leverage its economic power for strategic influence. The journey to becoming a geostrategic force will be challenging, and it must move beyond the former comfort of a “peace dividend”—there is no longer peace, nor a dividend to gain from it.
Supporting Ukraine and reinforcing European security is always going to fall on Europe, regardless of who is in the White House. The current conventional war has shaken the core of the European project, leaving many to wonder why Europe remains hesitant to adapt. Although a full-scale war was previously considered the worst-case scenario, Europe’s response suggests that even the present reality has not been enough to catalyse fundamental change.
Over the past year, the EU’s initiatives to address the security crisis have been termed “Trump-proofing,” aiming to protect the bloc’s security interests independent of US politics. This process has two primary components: strengthening European defence capabilities and providing military support to Ukraine. The latter includes plans to enhance NATO’s role by creating a €100 billion military fund for Ukraine and coordinating aid to complement the efforts of the Ramstein group. While innovative, these initiatives remain unfulfilled. Additionally, the EU has managed to meet only half of its goal to produce one million 155mm artillery shells for Ukraine. Europe’s defence industry, although state of the art, has struggled to respond to Ukraine’s pressing need for artillery in a coordinated manner due to its traditional focus on serving specific customer needs rather than mass ammunition supply. Similarly, Czech President Petr Pavel’s initiative to supply close to a million shells also fell short.
Efforts to bypass EU treaty restrictions, such as Article 41(2), to purchase military equipment for Ukraine will take time to yield results. The European Peace Facility (EPF), an off-budget mechanism, has provided some support, though not decisively. Additionally, the European Commission’s commitment of €50 billion for a “Ukraine Facility” to aid reconstruction is helpful but does not contribute to immediate military needs.
A more concrete example of Trump-proofing is seen in long-term security agreements that NATO members have individually signed with Ukraine. These agreements, which offer ongoing financial support, military aid, and defence industry cooperation, serve as a patchwork solution to Ukraine’s unfulfilled NATO membership aspirations. The security guarantees Kyiv desires—NATO’s Article 5 protection—remain elusive. While many in Europe recognise that only NATO membership or nuclear weapons could secure Ukraine’s territorial integrity, member states are divided due to fears of escalation. However, given the current level of conflict, this concern may seem unwarranted, as Europe already faces existential risks.
Long-term Trump-proofing measures for the EU itself are also underway, with goals set for 2030. Although these initiatives are unlikely to aid Ukraine in the immediate future, they are vital for transforming Europe’s security landscape over time. In March 2024, the EU launched a new defence industrial strategy to coordinate defence procurement and revitalise its defence technology sector, opening the door for global partnerships. This shift creates potential opportunities for countries like India, which already sends over 50 per cent of its defence exports to the US and has growing defence ties with European nations. South Korea has become a key defence supplier to the EU, while India has collaborated with several European states, such as France, Germany, Spain, Sweden, Poland, and the Czech Republic. Although most of Europe’s military modernisation has come from US and European firms, the demand to support Ukraine has strained production lines, underscoring the need for additional partnerships to meet the 2030 targets. South Korea has been quick to capitalise on the ongoing process.
With proper coordination with New Delhi, this cooperation could become mutually beneficial as the EU incentivises joint equipment purchases.
Another critical area of Europe’s security transformation involves boosting its maritime power projection. India is already a strategic partner in Europe’s efforts to substantiate maritime security in the Indo-Pacific region. This aspect of the EU’s strategy aligns with a broader geopolitical outlook, positioning Europe as an active player in securing global trade routes and countering potential threats in the region.
On the economic front, achieving Europe’s competitiveness is a far more challenging task, as it requires deep structural changes. The 2024 Draghi report emphasised that the EU must overcome regulatory barriers and adopt more flexible policies to maintain economic competitiveness. The economic decline of major European economies, particularly Germany, demonstrates the consequences of failing to invest in innovation. Recently, Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s government outlined a strategy focused on enhancing relations with India, highlighting the importance of partnerships in addressing economic stagnation. However, Scholz’s recent dismissal of his finance minister suggests that Germany’s economic challenges are deep-rooted. Wolfgang Munchau, in his book Kaput, argues that Germany’s economic challenges stem from a systemic dysfunction in its economy and political culture, necessitating a fundamental shift in its economic Weltanschauung or worldview.
Also read: 3 national capitals that will be the unhappiest about Trump’s victory & 3 that will be happiest
The silver linings
Not all European countries face the same issues, some, especially in Eastern Europe, have shown resilience and leadership. Poland, for instance, has made significant strides in military modernisation. Despite facing economic challenges, France has taken a more pragmatic approach to nuclear energy. President Emmanuel Macron has repeatedly called for a more strategically autonomous Europe, and even before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, he advocated for the EU’s Strategic Compass to guide its defence and security agenda. However, without broader EU cohesion, these aspirations risk remaining symbolic.
The EU’s aspirations for economic security often don’t align with its actual practices. Building true competitiveness is a significant challenge that requires more than lofty speeches from EU parliament stages—it demands timely, concrete action. Trump’s return to the White House could entail a collective decline for the West unless the widely acknowledged course corrections within the EU are put into place. If these changes succeed, future Europeans will look back with gratitude on these transformative shifts; if not, Europe may face decades of dysfunction.
The writer is a geopolitics analyst and author. She tweets @swasrao. Views are personal.
(Edited by Theres Sudeep)