Europe must prepare for a post-American world

The US is careening toward a domestic conflict that will make it impossible to continue the American military protectorate over Europe.

As an American living in Europe, the past months have had a distinct feeling of déjà vu. “He can’t really win, can he?” I am asked by terrified Europeans. Eight years ago I made the mistake of telling people it was highly unlikely. This time around, my answer is always the same. “Your assumption should be that he will be president again, and you should prepare accordingly.”

There are three categories of European when it comes to this: a small minority of far-right voices welcoming a Trump return (the Orbans, Le Pens and Rees-Moggs), a majority of centrist and left voices downplaying the likelihood of him returning and poo-pooing the damage he can do, and a minority of centrist and left voices who really understand the danger of what’s coming and how it puts this continent in grave danger. It is only that latter category that is urging action.

Most Europeans do not want to acknowledge the degree to which they are dependent on the United States. They are kept in this blissful state of ignorance by their politicians, who give them an illusion of national sovereignty while they rely on the American NATO protectorate for their safety and the American financial institutions for their prosperity. German politicians don’t mention that there have in the recent past been more active-duty US soldiers in Germany than active-duty German ones. Italian politicians don’t mention the seven enormous American military bases in their country. British politicians don’t dwell on the 13 US bases there, nor the idea that the Brits would need American permission to use their handful of nuclear weapons.

Europeans understand that US politics is important to their own security and prosperity, but they rarely stop to ask themselves why. Why do US politics get vastly more coverage in their national media than the national politics of their neighbors, or of their own EU confederal-level politics? Why, every four years, is the US presidential election covered as if a president of Europe is being elected (in an election in which Europeans have no representation)? And what does it mean if the United States elects a president who is at best disinterested in them or, at worst, views them as an enemy?

Those same Europeans who have were insisting last year that there was no way Americans would be so insane as to elect a man who attempted a coup four years ago have now switched their self-reassurance talking points. They now argue that if the world survived a Trump first term, it can survive a second one. But those people are ignoring the guard rails that were on Trump from 2016 to 2020 that would now be completely off. As has been extensively written about by now, there will be no adults in the room this time. Trump has made no secret that revenge is his number one motivator, and he wants completely unhindered power to do whatever he wants. The party he controls (half the political system), and the archaic American governing structures that rely on good behavior and precedent much like in the UK, do not inspire much confidence in being able to stop him. His lawyers are right now arguing in court that Trump should even have immunity to assassinate his political opponents.

The immediate repercussions for Europeans of Trump taking power are clear and have been much-discussed: he has promised to end the Ukraine War immediately after taking office and everyone knows that that means: ending aid to Ukraine and forcing Kiev to sign a peace treaty with Moscow that cedes vast swathes of the country’s East and South. Europe will be powerless to go against the United States on this. And, so the thinking goes, Putin then turns his eyes further West. Whether that is a realistic threat is a matter of debate, but in my opinion it is not the greatest danger. The real danger comes with what will develop domestically in the US.

Regardless of who people vote for in November, the United States faces the increasing likelihood of falling into chaos, either through a Trump dictatorship (which he has promised he will deliver on day one), a military counter-coup (which the county came close to in January 2021) or a civil war. Any of those scenarios, or even anything close to them, leaves the United States unable to defend Europe. It could also cause a collapse in economic institutions that would throw Europe into financial chaos. At minimum, even without the frightening scenarios described above, Trump has reiterated his intention to pull the United States out of NATO or tear up its mutual defence pillar, which translates into a NATO collapse unless it can be dramatically and rapidly reinvented (more on that below). That, in turn, would be likely to spur a Russian invasion of the European Union.

As I’ve written before, all of this was avoidable. Several generations of acquiescent European leaders who were willing to sell out European sovereignty for the sake of cheap defence and economic guidance are to blame. Few have been willing to listen to French warnings about this over the years. Now, it may be too late. The bedrock military, political and economic structures built in Europe over seven decades depends on a stable United States. That cannot be redesigned overnight. But there are quick steps that Europe can take now to be as ready as possible for January 2025, and they are steps that should be taken regardless of who the next president is - for the sake of European prosperity, agency and self-respect. They are only possible within the context of the European Union, the only tool on this continent that gives Europeans the power for true sovereignty.

The first step is simple. Plans must be in place to quickly transform NATO from an American protectorate into a Europe-only self-defence tool if need be, and this must have the involvement of the European Union. Major red lines have been crossed since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine two years ago and NATO and the EU have seen increasing convergence, overcoming decades of British and American resistance to them being linked in any way. If those linkages were to be rapidly increased, coupling with the new capacities for European Defence Union which have been slowly built up over the past two years, it would require overcoming the reservations of the UK, Ireland, Norway, Iceland, Austria and Turkey. But the severity of a situation in which Donald Trump has pulled the United States out of NATO would likely motivate all but the last one to drop their objections.

What would a Europe-only NATO look like? It’s hard to say. For one thing, there would be an open question about the continued involvement of Canada and Turkey, the latter of whom has proven particularly problematic (and who actually believes Turkey would come to Europe’s aid if attacked, or vice versa?). Some have argued that a transition to NATO as purely European defence should have been done preemptively during the first Trump term - but that position has been considered too outlandish to even be whispered in polite European circles (a piece I wrote in 2018 just exploring that idea was rejected by two different European publications as being too radical, so I published it independently on my blog).

These things take time, and time is something Europeans do not have on their side right now. What should have happened was, starting in the 1990s, two independent central pillars of NATO should have been established - the United States and the European Union - with each capable of independent action, neither dominated by the other, in a real defence alliance that works both ways. That would not have necessitated the dreaded “EU army” idea, but rather a ‘NATO within NATO’ - tight coordination of the EU’s national armies and the capacity to declare war as a bloc. Not an alliance of 29 countries pretending (unconvincingly) to each be equals but an alliance with two *actually* equal federal entities, the EU and US, at its core.

The reasons this didn’t happen are twofold. First, London and Washington (along with the new Eastern EU entrants) were worried that EU military capability would duplicate and undermine NATO. Second, the neutral EU countries not in NATO, Ireland and Austria, are constitutionally forbidden from engaging in such military activities. As for the latter, it’s time to end this ridiculous charade - both countries are de-facto protected by NATO without having to pay for it and to pretend that they are neutral now in 2024 is insulting to the rest of our intelligence. As for the former, if this two-pillar NATO idea had been engaged with there would be no reason for EU defence to undermine the alliance. In fact it would have strengthened it by making it an alliance in the true meaning of the word, rather than a protectorate. But instead Europeans preferred to bury their heads in the sand and do nothing, preserving their paltry defence budgets and maintaining a system designed for another era. Both Trump and Macron were not wrong when they said NATO, as it is designed, is a relic. Obama had more quietly said the same thing behind closed doors back in 2011.

Europeans preferred to do nothing rather than confront uncomfortable realities. And that’s where we are today. They now have nine months to prepare for the possible circumstances I outlined above (which, let’s face it, may or may not depend on how Americans actually vote in November - we’ve moved beyond future outcomes being only democratically-determined). Will Europeans continue to do nothing and hope for the best? Or will they take their own future into their hands, stop being dependent on the whims of a few thousand voters in Iowa, and actually show some leadership for a change?

An important decision comes soon, when a new NATO Secretary General is chosen. Normally this is not a hugely important position. After all, the real power and decision-making behind NATO is in Washington, not Brussels. But given that this will be the person who may find themselves head of an alliance that must be drastically reinvented after an American departure, it will be key to pick someone who is courageous, realistic, open to bringing the EU into the alliance and not wedded to outdated ideas of American protection. With this in mind, there is good reason to be sceptical of any Eastern or British candidate. It is fair for people interested in this position to be asked what they would do in the event that Trump pulls the US out. If they refuse to even engage with this question, then they are guilty of the same kind of ostrich thinking that has gotten this continent into the dangerous situation of over-dependence it finds itself in now. And that is not the right person for the job at this critically important time.

Because of the timing, the NATO secretary-general post is likely to get drawn in with the four EU ‘top jobs’ to be appointed in the coming months: Commission president, Council chairman, foreign affairs chief and Parliament speaker. For all five posts, Europeans should be looking for people who have spoken frankly and realistically about the difficulties Europe is facing in the coming year. For that, they could do worse than Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo, who has been one of the few leaders to speak bluntly about the future. “If 2024 brings us ‘America first’ again, it will be more than ever Europe on its own,” he warned in a speech at the European Parliament at the start of this year. “We should, as Europeans, not fear that prospect; we should embrace it.” Europe must become “stronger, more sovereign, more self-reliant.”