Introduction

For about 500 years, Europe was the centre of the world. From the age of exploration until post Second World War, Europe dominated the global scene in every aspect. However, that sparkle started to fade slowly. The war in Ukraine, more than anything else, exposed the extent to which Europe continues to depend on the United States for its security. Sadly, Europe could not respond to a major crisis on its own.

Inside the United States, this imbalance has not gone unnoticed. Successive administrations, especially Donald Trump, have questioned why American taxpayers should be burdened with the security of some of the world’s wealthiest states. Their frustration reflects a broader shift in U.S. strategy. Washington is increasingly expecting its partners to contribute more, not less, to shared security.

Meanwhile, other regions, from Asia to the Middle East, have shown a different approach. Countries like Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar invest heavily in their own defense and offer Washington strategic value in return. On the other hand, Europe remains chasing mirages of a post-WWII model where the U.S. is both the guarantor and the backbone of their security.

Historical conditioning: did Europe become dependent by design?

After WWII, European countries were exhausted and devastated. As a result, the United States emerged as the dominant Western military and economic power. During the Cold War, Washington assumed responsibility for Europe’s security against the Soviet threat and as a result stationed hundreds of thousands of troops across the continent. In addition, most European countries did not develop their own nuclear weapons. Instead, they relied on U.S. nuclear deterrence to protect them from the Soviet Union.

In 1948, the U.S. launched the Marshall Plan to help rebuild the collapsed European economies. A year later, the U.S. created and led the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). These two measures tied Europe to American leadership and formalised a relationship where the United States provided overwhelming military power while Europe focused on reconstruction. Article 5 (an attack on one member is considered an attack on all) gave European countries a sense of comfort and guaranteed protection and slowly led to the demilitarisation of Europe.

As economies recovered, European countries chose to invest heavily in social welfare instead of defense. This trend accelerated further with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. With their biggest threat’s collapse, European governments assumed that a full-scale war on the continent was no longer a realistic possibility. As a result, defense budgets fell way below the levels needed for autonomous capabilities. Many states never came close to the 2% of GDP benchmark (Institute for European Policymaking, 2024). In addition, defense industries and ammunition started to shrink gradually. The peace following the collapse of the Soviet Union strengthened the idea that America would remain the ultimate guarantor of European security.

Ukraine: the turning point

Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022 exposed Europe's post-WWII security vulnerabilities.

In the invasion's early days, EU/NATO responses were fragmented. Germany hesitated on lethal aid (e.g., delaying Leopard tanks), Hungary vetoed sanctions, and France pushed diplomacy over deterrence (Reuters, 2023). This reflected deep divisions. Eastern flank states such as Poland and Baltics demanded hardline stances, while Western states feared energy shocks from Russia.

Due to the ongoing policy of reducing defense industries and expenditure, European countries ran out of ammunition in weeks by early 2023 (BBC) and had to seek the United States’ help. The U.S. provided high-end capabilities like ATACMS missiles and F-16 training. Lieutenant General Ihor Romanenko, former deputy head of Ukraine's general staff of armed forces, explicitly stated that without American military aid, “we would last six months”, as reported by Le Monde.

The war proved Europe's strategic deficit. It could not act decisively even in its own "backyard" without U.S. coordination.

The United States financed around 70% of NATO military spending (NATO, 2024) and its bases are all over Europe. The U.S. operates dozens of major bases and facilities across the continent, encompassing air bases, army garrisons, naval facilities, and missile defense installations.

Europe relies heavily on the United States for security and intel and without it, it would be exposed. This further reinforced the idea that without the U.S., NATO is empty. The second largest army in NATO in terms of active personnel and fighter jets, ironically, is Turkey (Statista, 2024), which has been denied EU entry for years now.

Unequal partnership

Many countries around the world rely on the United States for protection. This is not something Europe-specific only. Middle Eastern countries and East Asian countries also tied their security with the United States. However, these countries are maintaining a healthy relationship based on mutual interest.

Countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar make huge arms deals with the United States regularly. They also share a common vision concerning the energy sector and thus support U.S. energy market stability. In addition, these countries offer diplomatic leverage in ongoing conflicts.

Similarly, countries like Japan and South Korea spend heavily on defense and support U.S. presence to contain China. In addition, they share technology, logistics, and manufacturing supply chains.

On the other hand, Europe is nowhere near this strategic partnership. Europe, as we have seen, delays spending and limits their defense sectors to a point where they can no longer project power. To make it even worse, they maintain trade relationships with countries that the United States consider a “threat”. In short, Europe treats the U.S. as a security service provider, not a partner.

Unfortunately, this was not a sustainable model, and it drew criticism from the most powerful man in the world.

Trump’s criticism

President Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized this and said that European NATO members were not spending enough on defense and were relying on the U.S. military “for free.”

In his first term, he accused them of spending money on welfare programs instead of the military and famously said: “We’re protecting Europe, and they’re not paying their fair share.” Trump attacked Germany in particular more than any other country because on top of spending very little on defense, Germany was buying Russian Gas (via Nord Stream) while relying on U.S. for protection from Russia (Reuters, 2018). He said it was absurd for the U.S. to defend Germany from Moscow while Germany was financing Moscow through gas purchases.

As a result, Trump threatened multiple times that he would not defend countries that do not meet spending targets, or that he might pull out completely from NATO. This was a shock to Europe because the U.S. never questioned Article 5 before. It is important to stress that they were not empty threats. John Bolton, former National Security Advisor of the United States, stated in a March 2022 Washington Post interview that he believed Trump would have withdrawn the US from NATO if reelected in 2020, noting Trump came "very close" to doing so in 2018 and that Putin "was waiting for that" (WaPo).

Conclusion

Europe has spent the past seventy years living under an American shield it never had to build, maintain, or pay for. The result is a continent that prospered on the assumption that the U.S. would always show up, always lead, always rescue. Today, that assumption is cracking.

Ukraine did not just expose Europe’s military weakness, but it exposed a deeper truth. Europe cannot act without American resources and protection. As the U.S. is increasingly preoccupied with China and global competition, the patience for carrying Europe’s weight is wearing thin. Trump simply said out loud what many in Washington had whispered for years: this partnership is unequal, and the imbalance is no longer acceptable.

What makes it even worse, military weakness has consequences far beyond the battlefield. A continent that cannot defend itself cannot expect to shape events elsewhere. That is where the story continues. Article 2 turns to the next uncomfortable question: If Europe cannot protect itself, is it any surprise that the world stopped waiting for its leadership?

Nadhem Mahmoudi is a translator and interpreter with an MA in Translation and Interpreting, specializing in the linguistic impact of non-native English accents.