Since his inauguration, Donald Trump has unleashed a torrent of initiatives, threats and decisions upon the world. Each day brings a new target and another broken taboo. Last autumn, discussions focused on how to ‘Trump-proof’ the transatlantic relationship. Plans were in place to counter his threats – whether imposing tariffs on European trade or linking America’s NATO commitments to increased European defence spending, preferably on US-made weapons.
But what we are seeing now is more radical and more damaging. There is something akin to a ‘cultural revolution’ underway, characterised by ideological extremism, the silencing of internal critics and the imperative of loyalty to the leader. In six short weeks, Trump and his team have threatened to seize European territory, abandoned Ukraine while bullying its president, aligned with Europe’s far right, and attacked the EU’s regulatory autonomy in the tech sphere.
Shockwaves are reverberating across Europe, triggering a flurry of crisis meetings in different configurations as leaders scramble to respond. Meanwhile, European public opinion is ahead of its politicians. Trust in the US among Germans has plummeted from 84% to just 16%, only slightly above Russia’s 6%. Strikingly, support for Europe’s populists is waning, suggesting a recognition among voters that the Trump tornado is harmful to European interests.
What to do?
Rather than obsessing over the latest events in Washington, Europe must focus on itself and above all on investing in its own strength. The ‘to do’ list is long, but three things stand out: Ukraine, European defence and the EU’s global posture.
Ukraine: the path to a just peace
With massive uncertainty surrounding American military aid and intelligence support, Europe must step up to fill the void as HR/VP Kaja Kallas has urged. Ukraine’s most urgent needs are known: air defence to shield cities and infrastructure from relentless Russian bombardment; satellite communications to reduce dependence on American-controlled assets like Starlink; long-range missiles to target Russian supply lines; and military training programmes, ideally conducted inside the country.
European options exist for each of these, but they need scaling up – immediately. Supporting Ukraine is not only strategically necessary but also a feasible goal. Annual US military support to Ukraine was around $ 17 billion; spread out over 450 million Europeans this means €40 per person per year – an affordable sum.
Moscow’s goal remains Ukraine’s subjugation, not peace.
Yes, some form of negotiations are underway. But we should be clear that Moscow’s goal remains Ukraine’s subjugation, not peace. Without robust enforcement mechanisms, any hastily brokered ceasefire will simply pave the way for renewed aggression. We must also keep in mind that economic and other pressures are also mounting on the Russian side. That is why Europe must support Ukraine in resisting a ‘quick and dirty’ deal that freezes the conflict in a way that benefits the Kremlin for example by forcing ‘neutrality’ on Ukraine or limiting the size of its armed forces. Instead, the focus should be on using every available tool – economic, military, and diplomatic – to ensure Ukraine’s survival as a democratic and sovereign state.
One necessary step now is to seize (part of) Russia’s frozen assets (worth around €200 billion in Europe) and hand them over to Ukraine. This should come with one clear condition: the money should only be spent inside Ukraine (for weapons or reconstruction) or in the rest of Europe.
European defence: time to leap forward
The urgent question now is: how to build deterrence with significantly reduced American involvement?
On the financial front, large sums are now being mobilised, with unprecedented increases in Germany, Denmark and elsewhere. The European Commission’s new initiatives, including the Re-Arm Europe proposal, mark a clear shift toward collective military investment.
But spending alone is not enough. Europe must demonstrate that spending at EU level is also better spending. This requires a sharp focus on flagship projects that no single country can acquire alone: integrated air defence (such as the Sky Shield initiative), satellite networks and next-generation drones.
Europe must demonstrate that spending at EU level is also better spending.
Beyond hardware, we also need to address issues of structures and training. A robust European defence cannot be built without the UK, or Norway. Similarly, with the US cancelling its participation in some NATO exercises planned for 2026, Europe must organise its own alternatives.
Moreover, deterrence requires more than military preparedness. Russia is already waging a shadow war against Europe – through cyberattacks, sabotage and disinformation. The EU must raise the costs of such actions, whether via proactive cyber defence, tougher economic sanctions, or counterintelligence operations.
Europe and the wider world: a strategic diversification agenda
America First is morphing into America Alone. For its part, Europe is under pressure but it is not alone. Many countries share Europe’s alarm over Trump’s coercion, unpredictability and aggressive unilateralism. They seek new anchors of stability. This presents opportunities for Europe to expand its global partnerships – to gain access to the things we need (energy, critical raw materials) but also respond to partners’ priorities.
It is striking that the Mercosur agreement was finally concluded after 20 years of talks, just when Trump was entering the White House. When he threatened Mexico with 25% tariffs, they turned to Brussels, seeking to finalise the upgrade of the EU-Mexico agreement. President von der Leyen was right to take the whole Commission to India to give that long under-performing relationship a push. Upcoming summits with the African Union and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) are other opportunities to advance this diversification agenda.
Europe is under pressure but it is not alone.
Some in Europe suggest that Trump’s madness means that Europe should now pursue a ‘China option’. This is a dangerous idea. It is not because our relative distance to the US has increased that our absolute distance to Beijing has decreased. The obstacles to better relations with China – overcapacities, economic coercion, human rights – are still there.
Europe has long talked about becoming a geopolitical actor, speaking the language of power, and taking responsibility for its own defence. Results have often fallen short. But Trump is leaving us no choice. Only one thing matters now: investing in our strength. For only the strong can remain free.
