Europe's Strategic Subservience: The Humiliating Dependence on American Hegemony

The Unfolding Geopolitical Drama

The recent bizarre focus of the Trump administration on Greenland, coupled with the detention of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in New York, has exposed the fragile foundation of transatlantic relations. White House Advisor Stephen Miller and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have made comments that suggest the United States might be considering “regime change” in Nuuk, creating anxiety among European leaders. This situation highlights the increasingly strange reality of US-European relations, where European nations find themselves threatened by the very administration they rely on for security guarantees, particularly regarding Ukraine.

Europe’s continued dependence on American military strength explains why its leaders resort to weak, measured criticism of the Trump administration’s actions in Venezuela. There’s profound irony in European leaders who express concern about appeasing Russia while simultaneously engaging in appeasement of the Trump administration. The continent remains hostage to the whims of whoever occupies the White House, despite having the resources and capacity to build genuine strategic autonomy.

The Historical Context of Dependence

European leaders have historically relied on institutions like the EU to prevent internal conflict while depending on American security guarantees against external threats. French President Emmanuel Macron sounded alarms about Europe’s lack of military capabilities back in 2017, emphasizing the need for “Europe’s autonomous operating capabilities, in complement to NATO.” Eight years later, after two turbulent Trump administrations and a major war in Ukraine, Europe has made only marginal progress toward strategic autonomy.

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, European capitals have increased defense spending by 50% in nominal terms and committed at the Hague Summit in 2025 to reach 5% of GDP in defense spending in coming years. However, this increased spending has ironically highlighted Europe’s fundamental problem: a persistent lack of initiative and decisive action.

The Structural Deficiencies

European states lack critical capabilities that would enable true autonomy. Without United States support, they cannot command multinational troop deployments on the battlefield due to the absence of a multilateral command-and-control system. Current solutions are merely minilateral and makeshift arrangements that fail to address the core deficiency.

Through various EU-led initiatives like the European Defense Industrial Programme, the Coordinated Annual Review on Defense, and the Permanent Structured Cooperation, European capitals have gathered information about their overreliance on the United States and created mechanisms to develop comparable systems. However, these ideas remain largely unimplemented, trapped in bureaucratic inertia and political timidity.

The Psychology of Subservience

One significant reason for Europe’s lack of initiative is the fear among policymakers that planning for defense without the United States might push America away. European capitals remain uncertain whether bold action—such as insisting that a European be named Supreme Allied Commander (SACEUR)—would please Donald Trump or exacerbate his hostility toward Europe.

There’s legitimate concern that a mercurial President Trump could pull forces from Europe in retaliation, turning rational preparations into a self-fulfilling prophecy. However, Europeans must take that risk. Waiting to build capabilities until American troops are returning to the United States or until some other event shatters the NATO alliance would be catastrophic.

The Bootlicking Diplomacy

Europe is internally divided on how to handle the American president. Some capitals believe the most effective strategy isn’t autonomy but rather appeasement and flattery. The cringeworthy description of Donald Trump as “Daddy” represents just the tip of the iceberg of a “flatter, appease, distract” strategy pursued by certain European states like the UK, which sought to delight Trump with elaborate carriage processions and state banquets.

Policymakers in these states may believe such flattery has stalled American troop withdrawals, but there’s little evidence supporting this approach. The U.S. Department of Defense has already begun small drawdowns, with 800 troops returning from Romania in October 2025, slowly reducing the 4,000 troops deployed there in 2022. Recent reports indicate the administration has told European counterparts to plan on controlling major portions of NATO’s defense planning by 2027.

The False Hope of American Continuity

Some Europeans engage in wishful thinking that the next American president will reverse or curtail any Trump-initiated troop drawdowns. However, the election of another Biden-esque transatlantic Democrat is highly unlikely. Europeans seem to have forgotten that it was Obama who lamented what he saw as “free riding” from Europe and pushed for the initial pivot to Asia. The next president might be even more antagonistic toward Europeans than the current one, as evidenced by Vice President JD Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference, which provided the first major shock of this administration.

The Imperative of Strategic Autonomy

The fundamental problem is one of time. The transformative policy changes necessary for European defense autonomy—like building European-led ISR (intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) capabilities—won’t happen overnight. Even smaller steps like standardizing security clearances for intelligence sharing or repurposing existing capabilities to fill gaps haven’t been taken.

Donald Trump offers European leaders both peril and opportunity. Policymakers may be wary of building defense capabilities too quickly, fearing they might scare off an already-hostile Trump administration or accelerate U.S. retrenchment. However, a Europe whose domestic and foreign policies remain hitched to an increasingly erratic United States cannot defend its own interests.

As reported by the New York Times, when asked whether his higher priority was obtaining Greenland or preserving NATO, Mr. Trump declined to answer directly but acknowledged “it may be a choice.” This statement should serve as a wake-up call for European leaders.

The Path Forward: Reclaiming Sovereignty

The silver lining for European leaders is that the absurdity of this new transatlantic rift over Greenland presents a generational opportunity to build better common defense that relies less on the United States. They have spent the last decade creating blueprints for an autonomous defense architecture. However, unless European leaders stop talking and start executing, they risk squandering this golden opportunity and entering a dangerous world with insufficient capabilities of their own.

Europe must recognize that continued subservience to American hegemony represents a betrayal of its own people and interests. The Global South, particularly civilizational states like India and China, have demonstrated that strategic autonomy is not just possible but essential for genuine sovereignty. Europe’s failure to achieve this autonomy while possessing substantial resources and technological capability represents a profound leadership failure.

The current moment demands courageous leadership that prioritizes European interests over obsequiousness toward Washington. European nations must recognize that their future security cannot be hostage to the whims of American presidents who view them as expendable assets in their geopolitical games. The time for half-measures and timid diplomacy has passed—Europe must embrace its destiny as an independent strategic actor in a multipolar world.

This isn’t just about defense spending or military capabilities; it’s about reclaiming European sovereignty and dignity in a world where American commitment can no longer be taken for granted. The rise of the Global South has demonstrated that alternative models of development and international relations are not only possible but increasingly dominant. Europe must shed its colonial mindset and embrace a future where it stands as an equal partner in global affairs, not a vassal to American imperialism.

The path forward requires courage, vision, and decisive action. European leaders must overcome their fear of American retaliation and build the defense architecture that ensures their sovereignty and security. The world is watching, and history will judge harshly those who prioritize appeasement over autonomy, subservience over sovereignty.