A recent article by Andrea Rizzi in El País brings back a question Europe has avoided articulating openly for decades: how can it become independent from the United States, a country that, from a natural ally, is increasingly behaving like a geopolitical adversary?
As Ana Miguel dos Santos, lawyer and specialist in security and defense in DN, notes, we have entered an “era of systemic vulnerability,” in which crises are no longer isolated events but parts of an interconnected structure: military, energy, technological, financial, and informational. Security can no longer be reduced to military power; it now depends on the resilience of critical systems, technological independence, energy sovereignty, and the ability to respond collectively to global shocks. If Europe intends to secure autonomy, rethinking only the defence pillar is not enough: it must rebuild a comprehensive strategic architecture that integrates military, economic, and technological sovereignty.
This paradigm shift is likewise highlighted by Ralf Fücks of the Center for Liberal Modernity at Zdfheute, who states bluntly that “the old West is over.” The unilateral presentation of the American peace plan for Ukraine is, in his view, merely the most visible symptom of a deeper rupture: the United States can no longer be assumed to guarantee Europe’s security, and the stable transatlantic umbrella no longer exists. Fücks argues that Europe must abandon its reactive posture – “Putin and Trump act, we react” – and finally take responsibility for its own security, massively increasing defence efforts, overcoming the constant fear of escalation, and presenting its own strategic plan for Ukraine. Putin’s most recent statements, asserting that “if Europe starts a war with Russia, soon there will be no one left to negotiate with” and that if Europe starts a war, Russia is “ready at this moment,” in addition to clearly stating that European proposals for a peace plan do not please Russia, and that Europe is preventing the US government from achieving peace in Ukraine, leave no room for doubt about the role that remains for Europe. What is at stake is not only military autonomy but Europe’s ability to avoid becoming a mere pawn on the chessboard of revisionist powers. For Fücks, the conclusion is clear: without European power – political, military, and industrial – there will be neither peace nor deterrence, nor room to manoeuvre in a world where American protection can no longer be taken for granted. Germany, France and the EU as a whole must accept that the era of the “Sonderweg” and comfortable dependence has come to an end.
The erosion of the transatlantic relationship is also evident in operational details, those that were invisible precisely because they worked seamlessly. Lieutenant General Christian Freuding, Chief of the German Army, revealed in a recent interview with The Atlantic that the United States has not only suspended certain arms deliveries to Ukraine but has also cut direct communication channels between American and German generals – channels that, until recently, were active 24/7. Today, Berlin must rely on its embassy in Washington, where diplomats try “to find someone at the Pentagon” willing to respond. This seemingly technical episode has major strategic meaning: it shows that the old machinery of trust, coordination, and political-military alignment has simply ceased to function. And it exposes Europe’s vulnerability to unilateral American decisions, reinforcing the long-postponed urgency of building real operational autonomy, with command, supply, and decision-making chains that do not depend on presidential moods or shifting U.S. priorities.
This reality is all the more evident as it becomes increasingly difficult for Europeans to still consider Washington a reliable partner. Especially after the United States launched, without any consultation, a diplomatic grenade in the form of a new “peace plan” for Ukraine. There was no coordination, not even strategic courtesy. The message was unmistakable: American interests no longer align with Europe’s and may even collide with them. The inescapable question is therefore: how should Europe move forward in a world where the United States is no longer an ally?
The answer is complex and uncomfortable. Europe remains deeply dependent on the United States in military and technological terms, and consequently also in commercial and regulatory ones. Broadly speaking, two strategic approaches exist today:
1. The Cautious Path: Gradual Autonomy Without Rupture
The first is a cautious, almost defensive strategy: avoiding a sudden break with Washington, buying time, preserving what still works in the transatlantic relationship, especially in security, and attempting to build autonomy incrementally.
This approach is not irrational. Europe still lacks essential military capabilities, from satellite constellations to other critical systems that the U.S. provides or dominates. And the war in Ukraine, which has already stretched the continent to its limits, makes it difficult to dispense with American support—even if it is costly and always conditional.
2. The Assertive Path: Independence at Any Cost
The second strategy is much tougher and more confrontational: resisting a United States that has become, in several ways, a threat—whether through digital dominance, tariff aggression, or opaque dealings with the Kremlin.
This would require massive investment in the European defence industry, uncompromising enforcement of digital and AI regulation, and the building of a truly autonomous European technological ecosystem.
As Giuliano da Empoli, in The Hour of the Predator, current affairs Book of the Year, argues, only decisive European action can generate the turbulence needed to force a real transition to autonomy. Better to pay now for a temporary crisis that leads to independence than to accept superficial calm that perpetuates dependency.
The problem is that the interdependence of factors makes the scenario risky. Europe’s military fragility renders any turbulence potentially devastating. Ukraine is in a precarious moment, both militarily and politically. European leaders know that a sudden rupture with the U.S. could have catastrophic consequences on the battlefield and for Kyiv’s internal stability. If Ukraine collapses, the Kremlin’s imperial victory would pose an historic threat to the continent.
This fear explains the current “calm.” Despite their indignation at Trump’s imposed peace plan, European leaders ended up “welcoming” the document in the G20 statement. The same logic explains Europe’s acceptance of the trade agreement signed on Trump’s Scottish golf course, as well as Brussels’ hesitation to fully enforce its own digital and AI regulations.
Da Empoli is right: without a sense of urgency, there will be no structural change. Ideally, this urgency would come from citizens rather than from a dramatic break with Washington. But are we ready?
There are early signs. European military and intelligence officials increasingly speak openly about the need for autonomy. Political leaders are beginning to do the same. France and Germany have revived forms of military service; Italy is considering it. The issue is no longer marginal, it has become existential.
Because the reality today is unavoidable: the United States is no longer an ally or a friend. It is a strategic adversary, sometimes openly, sometimes subtly. Europe will have to survive on its own in a world shaped by Russian aggression to Ukraine, Sino-American techno-economic confrontation, and the erosion of the multilateral order.
It is time to choose. If not with frozen Russian assets, then with eurobonds. If not with all 27, then through enhanced cooperation. Hesitation is the real enemy.
The world has changed. Europe has not, yet, but it must, and quickly, if it wants to ensure that its future is no longer decided in Washington, Beijing, or Moscow.
Author: Fernando Figueiredo – Retired Portuguese Army colonel and former NATO professional, who held various strategic leadership positions, currently serving as a defense consultant at Pulsar Development International. His work focuses primarily on defense requirements, offering expertise and a network of contacts that enable operational challenges to be overcome with effective, tailored solutions.
(The opinions expressed in this article belong only to the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of World Geostrategic Insights).