America and Europe: Features of New Relationships in a Changing World

This impression lingers with anyone following recent developments, particularly the statements made by U.S. President Donald Trump and the responses from European leaders. Related to this impression are numerous questions regarding whether these remarks signal an impending “fracture” within the Western imperial bloc, and whether this fracture is serious and irreversible, or merely a temporary “misunderstanding.” These questions contribute to the global confusion about the frantic pace of events and developments. One particularly puzzling issue is whether the use of nuclear weapons, as hinted at by the French president, has indeed become a possibility in the new defense strategies, or if it is simply a tactical threat aimed at rearranging relationships between America and Europe.

Addressing such questions requires some groundwork to unpack the meanings of the messages Trump has conveyed regarding American-European relations and Europe’s responses. Therefore, we will first attempt to analyze the overwhelming stream of statements and announcements emerging from both sides in the brief period of two months since Trump took office.

Has America Abandoned the Old Continent, and Why?

As a precursor to the questions raised by recent developments, a key question is: has America truly decided to abandon the Old Continent? It appears that the series of incendiary statements from the American president regarding Europe indicates a shift in U.S. attention away from Europe toward new geo-strategic priorities. Even the European reactions, despite their cautious nature and bold statements from leaders like the French president, lead to a similar conclusion. It’s clear that the issue extends beyond mere populist rhetoric between two populist leaders, Trump and Macron. The American president claims that due to his pressure, he has compelled the leaders of the vast majority of European countries (23 out of 32 NATO members) to allocate 2% of their GDP to military spending. Yet he deemed this insufficient, demanding an increase to 5%, threatening withdrawal from NATO and at the very least non-compliance with Article 5 of the alliance’s treaty, as part of his ongoing pressure on European member countries to “reconsider their defensive strategies.”

In further threats, he stated, “If they don’t pay, I will not defend them,” expressing doubts about the efficacy of the alliance between his country and Europe, saying, “The biggest problem for me with NATO is if, let’s say, the United States gets into trouble and asks France or other countries—no point in naming them—and they say to them, ‘I’m in trouble,’ do you think they will rush to help us? I am not sure about that.” Consequently, Trump warned that his country would not intervene on behalf of any European nation if it were attacked from any quarter. More than that, he expressed his country’s readiness to withdraw from NATO, as he has previously done with many other international bodies (World Health Organization, Paris Climate Agreement, etc.).

In reality, the United States has been contemplating this for some time. Former President Barack Obama emphasized in 2011 the importance of the Indo-Pacific region for the future of American interests and explicitly urged Europeans to start thinking about relying on their own forces for self-defense. He revealed in 2014 the significant portion of the defense budget allocated by the U.S. for military expenses in Europe and defending Europe, and called for an end to this situation.

Current President Donald Trump promised during his 2016 presidential campaign to reduce the size of U.S. forces in Europe, and in May 2020, during his first presidency, threatened to pull American troops from Europe. This has led Europeans increasingly to believe that the Western alliance is facing serious fracture and that they need to hasten their reevaluation of their defensive strategies in light of these changes and the evolving power dynamics in the world. Many other indicators support these realities since Trump’s return to the White House, the most notable being his position on the Russian-Ukrainian war, the humiliating treatment of the Ukrainian president during live media appearances, and voting at the UN General Assembly alongside Russia against a Ukrainian-European draft resolution.

This marks a precedent not seen in decades. Above all, the pressure exerted by the Trump administration on Ukraine to agree to relinquish half of its precious metal reserves to the U.S. and accept concessions that Ukraine is expected to give to Russia, which are now being formulated in the preparatory talks in Saudi Arabia for the upcoming summit between Trump and Putin, will outline a ceasefire plan in the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian war.

In light of all these considerations and others, American thinker Stephen M. Walt, a representative of the “new realism” school in international relations, comments on the current situation by saying that “most European leaders, particularly those who attended the 61st Munich Security Conference, believe that for the first time since 1949 (the year NATO was founded), there are strong reasons to believe that Trump is not only indifferent to NATO and ignores European leaders, but is hostile to most European countries. Instead of viewing European nations as America’s most important partners, Trump seems to have changed his stance and sees Russia under President Vladimir Putin as a better bet in the long term.”

While the American contemplation of reassessing the commitments of the superpower towards its European allies is not new, it is also based on many diverse considerations; it is not solely about security and military aspects. The United States, under Trump—just as in the past—has been uncomfortable with the economic weight represented by the European Union, which has now nearly matched the size of the American economy (17 trillion dollars for the EU’s GDP versus 20 trillion dollars for the U.S.). In this, Trump disapproves of the massive trade surplus Europe enjoys with its exports to America.

For clarity, during his first term, Trump imposed tariffs on European agricultural products and iron and steel items. He has now decided once again to impose tariffs of 25% on iron, steel, and aluminum products. Trump is also displeased with the European regulations directed at American companies in the digital sector, as well as European laws concerning digital services, markets, data, and artificial intelligence, which the Trump administration perceives as non-tariff barriers restricting American exports in this sector. While Europe excels in automotive and manufactured goods exports, the U.S. excels in services and digital technologies. However, comparing the export revenues from both sides clearly favors Europe.

This indicates that the United States, which has historically treated Europe as a “colony” under its control—having relied on it since the end of the Marshall Plan for reconstruction as a vital investment space and a market for promotion—is no longer willing to settle for that and aims instead, in light of changing global market dynamics and the shifting economic and trade conflict landscape (especially with China), to enjoy greater privileges in its relationships with Europe.

In a word, it can be said that American imperialism is in the process of reshaping its hegemonic strategy on a global scale. Within this strategy, it will abandon the paternalistic role it has followed throughout the Cold War and even during the unipolar period concerning the Old Continent. In response, Europe has not delayed in collectively responding within the framework of the “European Union” or individually in some cases (France, Germany, etc.) according to the particular calculations of influential political and economic powers within the European group.

European leaders have followed the U.S. elections closely, with some hoping for the ascent of a Democratic party representative, fearing Trump’s return to the White House and apprehensive of what he had been propagating in his campaign (which he had already initiated in his first term). At the same time, far-right populists like Viktor Orbán from Hungary, Giorgia Meloni from Italy, and Geert Wilders—the leader of the far-right party and right-wing coalition in the Netherlands—were eagerly anticipating Trump’s rise, viewing it as a significant additional victory for the expansion of the “far-right international” worldwide. They indeed witnessed what they anticipated, but none expected Trump to traverse such distances in his stance toward Europe and the future relationship between America and Europe in such a brief time.

European Responses: Apparent Unity Amid Hidden Divisions

Many European leaders were astonished by what Trump announced during his appearances in the media upon entering the White House, while others hesitated to wait for a clearer picture. They did not have to wait long before realizing that the United States is heading toward a disengagement from Europe, moving toward geo-strategic spaces deemed more significant in the American imperial agenda.

Trump’s defense minister Mike Haguesith’s statements in a press conference in Brussels, where he declared that “the United States is no longer the primary guarantor of European security,” sent shockwaves through all European capitals, realizing that for the first time since the end of World War II, Europe must openly and clearly take responsibility for its own security. In response, European officials have taken multiple directions to counter this “unwelcome surprise,” expressing the extent of the doubts and fears that have, in fact, preoccupied them since 2014, now transformed into reality. It is noteworthy that against the backdrop of these fears, the European Union in 2016 approved the “comprehensive European strategy” to develop European military readiness, which led to the establishment of the “European defense action plan” adopted by the European Commission, including the establishment of a European defense fund and other steps to help member states enhance their research and spending effectively on shared defensive capabilities, thereby stimulating a competitive and innovative defense industrial base and contributing to bolstering the security of European citizens.

In the same vein, the “European Defense Initiative” emerged, comprising ten European countries “with military capabilities and political will to play a role on the international stage, namely Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Estonia, Finland, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, and the United Kingdom,” with the aim of enhancing Europeans’ ability to carry out military operations and tasks as part of a multilateral framework (the European Union, NATO, and the United Nations) or specifically for that purpose, regarding all crises that could threaten European security.

With these steps taken over the past ten years, driven by concerns for securing the future and ensuring self-defense capability on one hand and aspirations for expansion in its nearby eastern and southern neighborhood on the other, Europe now finds itself suddenly called upon to build a plan to protect itself.

However, this accelerated shift has not reached a definitive conclusion regarding Europe’s military dependency on the U.S. and its complete reliance on the “NATO defense umbrella.” Europe has remained ambivalent during this time, torn between the desire for full security and defense independence from Washington and the acknowledgment of the necessity to shelter under it. Therefore, in reaction to Trump’s statements and those of his ministers, the European stance was not fundamentally unified. What was expressed in the official statements of European institutions (the EU, the Commission, etc.) reflected just the minimum agreed upon, mandated by diplomatic requirements and mutual interests; however, each state’s “narrow” calculations conceal other truths.

The disagreements that have not fully manifested in the positions of European countries regarding the U.S./Trump stem from numerous reasons, including ideological proximity and shared values of the populist-fascist project for some, as well as immediate utilitarian calculations or specific ambitions from some countries, particularly the older imperial powers (France, Britain, Italy, Germany).

It is theoretically probable that the populists in Italy, Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland will further strengthen ties with the current U.S. administration, seeking to achieve some political and economic gains in light of their ideological proximity and shared conservative values with Trump. This group could serve as a force for pulling back and impeding any effort to “cut ties” with America. Conversely, France aims to exploit this historic opportunity to prompt Europe toward embracing the necessity of establishing its own European model in politics, economics, and trade relations—a model that heralds a “new European era,” ensuring strategic independence, security, economic prosperity, and commercial success, thereby securing a more significant position in international politics for the Old Continent. In this endeavor, France faces serious competition from Britain. Yet this does not prevent these two old imperial powers from showcasing their military and nuclear capabilities as a shield for protecting Europe and reclaiming leadership in this new phase, the “post-American” era.

Between these extremes lies another group of EU members publicly supportive of American decisions—among which are Poland and the Baltic states, as well as Scandinavian countries, which hastily declared support for Trump’s demand to raise military spending to 5% of GDP. This group considers the U.S. role vital and irreplaceable in the face of Russian threats and thus sees no objection to complying with U.S. conditions despite their severity.

These differences in how EU members approach the new American strategy have not prevented EU institutions from expressing criticism—sometimes vehemently—of Trump’s statements and those of his ministers (the Vice President, the Defense Minister, and Elon Musk, “the Doge”). In this phase, it has been possible to maintain European unity on several issues and files, including the agreement to continue supporting Ukraine and standing ready to handle the military implications. The European Union has provided military and economic assistance amounting to $138 billion, and following the spat between Trump and Zelensky, Britain announced a military aid package to Ukraine comprising five thousand surface-to-air defense missiles. The enthusiasm among Europeans for increasing armaments has become official EU policy, not in response to Trump’s demands but as a purely European desire to enhance the Union’s defense capabilities away from American protections. In this context, intentions to develop independent paths in military intelligence, space surveillance, and diversified coordination and cooperation in the military industry with powers outside NATO are articulated. A decision has also been made to return to compulsory military service across the Union and increase troop levels in France, Britain, Poland, and Germany.

Additionally, the agreement entails allocating about €800 billion to strengthen European defenses and fund the European sky shield initiative, proposed by Germany and joined by around 20 European countries to develop multi-range air defense systems (long, medium, and short-range). French President Macron proposed, in anticipation of a possible NATO dissolution, and in response to Trump’s announcement of the “American Iron Dome,” to establish a nuclear shield for all of Europe based on the French nuclear umbrella—a proposal that garnered support from countries such as the UK and Germany (the new chancellor).

Regardless of these details and many others, it is evident that profound transformations are underway within the Western imperial bloc that has endured for eight decades. While Trump, who has come to represent the major monopolies in the realm of modern technology, appears determined to redraw the landscape of relationships among major powers, the direction of the European decision remains unclear. This implies that the course of transformation will require time to shape the contours of the new landscape and the nature of the conflict that will organize its fundamental components: the United States, China, Russia, and also the newly defined European Union.

Recently, the rhetoric of escalation from both the American and European sides has intensified, and it seems that they have accepted a “divorce” after approximately eight decades of “imperial harmony,” to put it colloquially. Thus, Trump has turned his attention away from Europe toward the East, namely Russia and then China, while Europe has hastened to prepare for the new situation and reevaluate its defense strategy. Both sides fully recognize, as does anyone following these developments, that the issue does not solely concern the fracturing of the America-Europe relationship; it also conceals— to varying degrees, as many aspects of the issue have become increasingly transparent—deeper and more comprehensive transformations in the Western capitalist and imperialist system and, consequently, in the international relations system toward the end of the “unipolar” era.

By scrutinizing what is happening, three significant elements can be observed in the transformations resulting from the “new” choices of the Trump administration, namely the ongoing changes in the landscape of imperial rivalry in the world today, the transition to a new phase of neoliberalism within the capitalist model, and the diligent preparations for war under the banner of “the state of war instead of the welfare state,” as proclaimed by far-right theorists for the new era in the history of capitalism.

A New Scene for Imperial Conflict

There is no doubt that Trump’s decision for his country to abandon the mission of defending Europe will have direct and medium-term repercussions, as evidenced by recent European statements acknowledging the fracture within the ranks of the Atlantic imperial bloc. The gaze of leaders on the Old Continent now shifts toward adopting a defensive plan aimed at establishing a new military bloc comparable to Russia and America and the other major imperial poles. Trump’s statements may have other repercussions as well. If the European NATO members fail to allocate 5% of their GDP for defense spending—something many of them may find plausible—Trump could indeed proceed with withdrawing from NATO, marking a giant step toward dismantling the Western imperial bloc. This bloc has played pivotal roles in conflicts between great powers during the Cold War and in the unipolar era following the collapse of the Soviet Union, yielding significant “benefits” for American imperialism from an expansionist perspective, exercising its guardianship over the world and managing various regional disputes globally. These “benefits” today seem unsatisfactory and inadequate for Trump and his far-right entourage.

It is certain that the American administration seeks to maintain its monopoly on power and impose its will on the world, albeit not in the old way. Instead, it aims to reap benefits far greater than those obtained previously. The major monopolies, for the first time, have assumed positions of governance themselves to manage the phase, and they are no longer willing to accept the old systems of profit and privileges distribution. The Trump administration desires sole and absolute control over the world without partners. In this context, it intends to maintain the petrodollar system—linking oil prices to the dollar and relying exclusively on it in oil transactions, which has bolstered the dollar’s power as a global reserve currency, giving the American economy an advantage over other economies.

It also seeks to reconfigure commercial power dynamics by imposing tariffs on imports from competing economies, namely China and Europe, to reduce production costs for American companies in comparison to those of competitors in other countries. It aims to increase energy production (exploiting offshore areas, the Arctic, Greenland, etc.) and cut production costs by pressuring environmental spending and evading international obligations in this regard (withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement, etc.), all to dominate and control the global market. It will not hesitate to employ force to lure foreign investments and compel nations like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, for instance, to invest petrodollar surpluses into American expenses and the purchase of treasury bonds (1.5 trillion dollars from the UAE and 450 billion dollars from Saudi Arabia) and to demand they fund budget deficits and support American interest rates.

Through these measures and many others, American imperialism seeks to orchestrate the current unipolar order to maximize profits for a handful of monopolists as quickly as possible.

To achieve this goal, it is essential to rearrange relations with direct competitors in the economic and commercial fields, specifically with China and the European Union, and with military competitors, especially Russia. Trump’s turn towards the East, to Russia, aims to create a “truce” in the struggle while preparing preliminary steps before later entering a phase of open conflict against all parties to impose Trump’s team’s sovereignty over the world, comprising leaders like “Truth Social’s” Trump, Elon Musk of SpaceX and Tesla, Mark Zuckerberg of the giant Meta, Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Peter Thiel of PayPal, Larry Page of Google, and others from major monopolies in Silicon Valley and other fields related to military industries, real estate speculation, and tourism (Wework, led by the Israeli-American Adam Neumann).

Deceiving the world with an apparent understanding with Russia and replacing the old competitive and tense relationships with those of “harmony” and fostering calm relations with China merely constitutes a temporary strategy for a transitional phase that will end with the rearrangement of power balances according to Trump’s plans. Once this is over, conflicts will likely escalate once again, to what they were and more, with nothing hindering them from assuming a violent and destructive nature.

New Neoliberalism and Absolute Deregulation

Another feature indicates that the new American administration has brought with it a “theory” setting the stage for a new phase in capitalism, a theory advocating the liberation of economic and commercial activity from all political, legal, and ethical limitations, facilitating profit-making pathways without hindrances.

Trump approaches economic and commercial activity as a businessman or entrepreneur with a trading mindset, perceiving economic dealings as processes governed by “negotiation” rules, seeing his function at the head of state merely as that of a CEO of a massive “company.” This perspective is encapsulated in his book “The Art of the Deal.” As a capitalist, he generally prioritizes profit realization and dismantling any barriers obstructing the “company’s” pursuit. Hence, the “company” should disregard any external factors. Therefore, it is imperative to eliminate all excessive expenses, whether under the pretext of “incentivizing workers,” environmental considerations, or health and pension insurance, etc. Tax reductions on income and profits must occur, while concurrently tightening regulations on “competing companies” (i.e., other economies and countries) and confining them in the market and directing investments toward high value-added sectors.

Thus, the process requires liberating “the company” from the “absurd” constraints imposed by previous policies, which have become a sacred doctrine ready for obliteration. Safety rules in work and production, anti-corruption laws, measures preventing unfair competition, consumer protection laws, and financial market regulations—all of which have hampered creativity and ingenuity, hindering the company’s role in “realizing profits”—are now seen as relics from a regrettable past. Hence, Trump and his new governing team view this “liberation” as the key to their success under the “GAMA” slogan: Making America Great Again.

Thus, upon assuming the presidency, he decided to eliminate various laws and instructed his Attorney General to suspend anti-corruption laws and regulations associated with economic and commercial transactions. He issued a directive to dismiss the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau established following the financial crisis of October 2008, which aimed to set operational rules for banks and financial institutions and protect consumers and borrowers. Conversely, he directed the facilitation of accounting procedures regarding cryptocurrency transactions, encouraging these projects (in which his children actively participate) and preparing for their gradual integration into the American and global monetary systems.

We are now facing a second version of the neoliberal transformation that Ronald Reagan introduced, but this time in a manner excessively characterized by extremism and injustice. Just as Margaret Thatcher rapidly embraced Reagan’s policies, today, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Finance Minister Rachel Reeves are following in Trump’s footsteps, issuing orders to “drop the constraints hindering growth” and deciding to dismiss the head of the Competition and Markets Authority in favor of a former Amazon executive.

This “deregulation” choice is spreading throughout the European Union, as several far-right or conservative governments in various countries have expressed intentions to adopt this brutal liberal policy. Under the banner of creating a conducive environment for achieving growth, European governments, both through shared institutions and individually, have begun to ease restrictions on financial manipulation, corruption, and environmentally harmful activities. There is no doubt that the trend toward wild neoliberalism, as advocated by Trump, will quickly become the favored policy recommended by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and major global financial institutions as the best pathway to achieve growth and overcome economic stagnation and stagflation.

The world needs to await a period of time to see whether this choice will endure, as was the case during the first wave of neoliberalism that began with Ronald Reagan’s presidency in America and the conservative government in Britain led by “the Iron Lady.” It is likely that the fate of Trump’s wild neoliberalism will not differ from that of its predecessors.

The State of War Instead of the Welfare State

This notion has become prevalent among known Western media, influential in the financial and business spheres in America and Europe, such as The Financial Times and The Wall Street Journal, and even among top-level politicians like European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, British Defense Minister John Healey, the new German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, and a wide range of European leaders who unite in stating, “Europe must reduce the welfare state and build a war state.” This sentiment is justified by amplifying the Russian threat that supposedly stands on the brink of breaching Europe, or as British Prime Minister Starmer described, “I can hear their footsteps in the streets of Britain.” While there may be some truth to this statement, it is undoubtedly exaggerated to justify the inclination toward militarization and preparation for war.

One might assert that the European bourgeoisie has found in Trump’s statements regarding European protection the appropriate pretext to underpin this trend. In an attempt to justify this, Martin Wolf, the spiritual reference of the Keynesian liberal school at The Financial Times, stated, “If Europe does not quickly mobilize to defend itself, liberal democracy may collapse entirely. Today, it feels reminiscent of the 1930s. But sadly, this time, the United States seems to be on the wrong side.”

Thus, Europeans hastened to activate their military production forces, as the European Commission President proposed a program entitled “Rearm Europe,” allocating €800 billion for this purpose. She justified this by stating, “We are in an era of rearmament, and Europe is ready to significantly increase its defense spending to respond to the urgent need, in the short term, to act and support Ukraine, but also to address our long-term needs to take more responsibility for our European security.” She called for exceptional measures and the breach of budget rules as required, increasing defense spending in EU members, and pledged to provide €150 billion immediately to help countries in need of funding for defense investments to “develop air weapons, missile defense systems, and manufacture missiles and ammunition, artillery systems, drones, and anti-drone defenses,” among others. In contrast, she warned that “there will be no additional funding for investment or infrastructure projects or public services, as Europe must dedicate its resources to prepare for war.”

In Germany, the new Reichstag, with a right-wing and far-right majority, approved a law to remove “legal constraints” imposed on the budget, preventing the government from borrowing beyond budget limits. Thus, it is now permissible to exceed these “constraints” and borrow beyond legal limits concerning additional military expenditure.

The British Defense Minister stated that increasing the defense budget “will make the defense industry a driving force for the economic growth of the country.” The Polish Prime Minister went even further, asserting that his country “must reach the latest capabilities in military armaments, including nuclear weapons and modern non-conventional arms.”

With the spread of theoretical concepts associated with the economic school often referred to as “military Keynesianism,” new propositions have emerged asserting that spending on military manufacturing could aid in economic recovery, tackle crises, create full employment, boost demand, and consequently achieve growth. Some contend that “wars are the mothers of renewal.”

We have focused here on the new trends in Europe as they undergo fundamental changes in both the course of events and the ongoing developments, which entail conflicts between imperial poles destined to shape the future dynamic featuring the United States, Russia, China, and a Europe striving to secure its position within this unfolding scene.