Europe cannot rely on the USA to pay for its defence
Trump’s ‘Electroshock’ on Ukraine Ends the Debate: Europe Cannot Rely on the US for Its Security
In a seismic shift that has sent shockwaves through European capitals, the fundamental pillars of transatlantic security are being dramatically reshaped. European leaders arriving at the Munich Security Conference today find themselves grappling with an unprecedented situation, following the revelation that President Donald Trump conducted a private 90-minute telephone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The call, made without any prior consultation with Ukraine or NATO allies, has cast a long shadow over the conference’s proceedings.
Trump’s subsequent announcement that direct negotiations to end the conflict in Ukraine would commence ‘immediately’, coupled with his proposal for a summit in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, has left European diplomats and security experts reeling. This unilateral diplomatic manoeuvre effectively terminates Putin’s international isolation and raises profound questions about the future of European security architecture.
## The Diplomatic Earthquake
The ramifications of Trump’s unexpected diplomatic gambit extend far beyond mere protocol breaches. By single-handedly upending decades of carefully calibrated Western policy towards Russia, Trump has initiated what French President Emmanuel Macron describes as an ‘electroshock’ to the European security establishment.
The timing of this dramatic shift could not be more significant. As defence ministers, intelligence chiefs, and security experts converge on Munich—a city whose name remains forever linked to historical attempts at appeasement—the parallels with past diplomatic failures are impossible to ignore.
## A Negotiating Strategy Under Fire
Trump’s reputation as a dealmaker has suffered a devastating blow. In an unprecedented departure from conventional negotiating wisdom, his administration has preemptively surrendered key bargaining positions before formal talks have even begun. The public declaration that Ukraine will be permanently excluded from NATO membership, coupled with implicit acceptance of Russia’s territorial gains and an explicit refusal to commit American troops to Ukraine’s defence, has drawn sharp criticism from allies.
Germany’s Defence Minister, Boris Pistorius, articulated the widespread dismay, pointing out the fundamental flaw in surrendering crucial negotiating leverage before discussions commence. The word ‘appeasement’ has begun circulating among conference attendees, its usage deliberately chosen to evoke the ghost of 1938 in these same Bavarian halls.
## The Broader Implications for Global Order
Yet the implications of Trump’s actions stretch far beyond the immediate crisis. His approach represents a fundamental repudiation of the post-war international order that America itself architected. The president has demonstrated with stark clarity that traditional alliances and friendships hold little weight when measured against his narrow interpretation of American interests.
The reverberations of this shift are particularly acute within NATO, where Trump’s actions have dealt a potentially fatal blow to the principle of collective defence—Article 5’s promise that an attack on one is an attack on all. This cornerstone of European security, which has underpinned continental peace for three-quarters of a century, now appears increasingly fragile.
## European Response and Strategic Autonomy
European nations now face a complex trinity of challenges: sustaining support for Ukraine, ensuring continental defence, and recalibrating their relationship with an increasingly unreliable American partner.
Regarding Ukraine, Europe retains several significant leverage points. The continent controls the majority of frozen Russian assets, which will inevitably feature in any negotiation with Moscow. Additionally, Europe’s position as a major energy consumer provides some negotiating power, though internal pressures—particularly visible in Germany’s election discourse—are pushing for a return to cheaper Russian gas supplies.
## The Security Guarantee Conundrum
Perhaps most troublingly, the United States has explicitly abdicated responsibility for defending any potential ceasefire line between Ukraine and Russia, leaving this critical task to European nations. This creates an enormous practical challenge: any meaningful security guarantee would likely require substantial military commitments from Britain, France, and Poland.
For the United Kingdom, this presents a particularly acute dilemma. Any significant deployment would consume nearly all of Britain’s already stretched military resources. Moreover, the effectiveness of any European security guarantee appears questionable without access to American air power and advanced missile systems, though Trump’s team has hinted at potential availability of these assets.
## The Financial Reckoning
Trump’s call for NATO members to increase defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP—effectively doubling current military expenditure—presents European nations with stark choices. This demand may require fundamental reconsideration of the fiscal rules that have governed European economic policy for decades.
The political implications are equally challenging. European leaders must now contemplate reducing social welfare programmes, healthcare provision, and pension benefits to fund increased defence spending—a politically toxic proposition in many countries.
## Britain’s Strategic Crossroads
The United Kingdom faces its own set of difficult decisions. While political support for Ukraine remains robust across party lines, the practical challenges of increasing defence spending are daunting. The government’s pledge to raise spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP from the current 2.3 per cent lacks a concrete timeline.
Lord Robertson’s forthcoming defence review is expected to paint a sobering picture of British military readiness, with reports suggesting UK forces possess less than three days’ worth of ammunition. With the nuclear deterrent already consuming 0.8 per cent of GDP, finding additional resources for conventional forces presents a significant challenge.
## The Transatlantic Relationship at a Crossroads
The broader question of maintaining close ties with the United States has become increasingly complex. The previously straightforward calculation based on shared values and commercial interests now appears less convincing. Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on countries that charge VAT, including both the EU and UK, adds another layer of uncertainty.
Britain’s diplomatic positioning reflects this complexity. While declining to sign a recent agreement on AI governance alongside the US, it has openly criticised Trump’s proposed approach to Gaza. These developments may accelerate Britain’s pursuit of closer alignment with the EU, as both entities explore strengthened relationships with partners in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia.
## Looking Ahead: European Unity in Question
The immediate focus of the Munich Conference remains supporting Ukraine, but the challenges extend far beyond this immediate crisis. Europe’s ability to present a unified front in strengthening its defence capabilities faces significant hurdles, particularly given political uncertainties in France and Germany.
Even if European nations can overcome these obstacles and achieve unprecedented levels of military cooperation and investment, a fundamental question remains: Can Europe effectively deter a wounded but aggressive Russia without American backing?
The coming months will prove crucial in answering these questions and determining whether Europe can forge a new path toward strategic autonomy in an increasingly uncertain world. The stark reality is that the transatlantic security relationship, which has underpinned global stability for generations, may never be the same again.