To avoid being sidelined in critical security discussions, Europe must back up its rhetoric with real defence commitments and a concrete plan for Ukraine, including security guarantees, financial support, and possibly even troops – alongside NATO membership. However, while Europe must step up, the US cannot overlook NATO’s role in safeguarding not just Europe but also American security for over 75 years. A strong transatlantic alliance is crucial in countering global threats, and a divided West would only benefit Moscow and Beijing.
Diplomatic cacophony in Munich
Discussions on European security rarely begin with a quote from Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, but to capture the essence of last week in transatlantic relations, one seems fitting: “There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.”
US President Donald Trump’s decision to initiate negotiations with Russia over Ukraine, bypassing Europe entirely, sent shockwaves across the continent. His questioning of Ukraine’s NATO future and territorial integrity sparked panic. To contain the fallout, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth and Vice President JD Vance insisted that nothing is off the table. While Hegseth praised Poland as a “model ally” and urged others in Europe to follow its lead, he also delivered a stark warning: US troops might not remain in Europe forever.
The week’s tensions culminated at the Munich Security Conference, where JD Vance launched a vitriolic attack on the EU. Most notably, he criticized the Union for suppressing freedom of expression and even questioned whether the US and EU still share a common vision, suggesting that Europe’s greatest threat might not be Russia or China, but an “enemy within.”
In response to an unprecedented wave of American hostility toward Europe, its closest ally, several European leaders did not mince their words. French President Emmanuel Macron, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas, and even Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have all called for a stronger European defence, insisting that the EU must have a seat at the table in any negotiations on Ukraine’s future. Meanwhile, voices advocating for Ukraine’s NATO membership have grown louder, with Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen among the most vocal supporters.
This diplomatic turmoil has triggered a full-blown crisis in transatlantic relations, prompting Macron to convene an emergency summit with select European leaders, including the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
Europe should boost its defence to be taken seriously
Americans negotiating with the Russians on European security is not a recent development. Even before Russian President Putin launched his full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the key discussions were happening between American and Russian representatives with Europeans playing only a minor role. In fact, it was European leaders who urged Washington to negotiate with Moscow as it became increasingly clear that Putin was preparing to invade Ukraine. A prime example is the now-infamous phone call between Putin and Macron, in which the French president made a last-ditch attempt to broker a meeting between Russian and American leaders to avert the war.
Admittedly, Europe has a poor track record when it comes to negotiating with Russia. The Franco-German-led Minsk Agreements ultimately failed, giving Moscow time to consolidate its gains, perfect its hybrid warfare arsenal and prepare for the full-scale invasion in February 2022.
If Europe wants to be taken seriously in Moscow, it must wield substantial military power and the political will to use it. Another Lenin quote encapsulates this: “You probe with bayonets: if you find mush, you push. If you find steel, you withdraw.” In other words, it is weakness not strength that drives Moscow’s aggression.
To achieve credibility in Washington, Europe must move beyond process-driven discussions and focus on tangible results. The most notable outcome of last week cannot merely be EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s proposal to trigger an emergency clause exempting military spending from strict EU budget deficit rules. Nor can European defence debates remain bogged down in bureaucratic details like eligibility criteria for the European Defence Industrial Programme (EDIP), especially when its budget stands at just €1.5 billion, a fraction of the estimated €500 billion needed to rebuild European militaries.
Several reports by think tanks, including “Quick March!” from the European Policy Centre, and EU institutions, such as the Draghi and Niinistö reports, have already provided clear responses to Europe’s security challenges. The upcoming White Paper on the Future of European Defence will add further policy solutions. However, the issue is not a lack of understanding but a failure to act. Reports and white papers, no matter how well crafted, are ultimately only as valuable as the political will to implement them.
Europe should offer concrete proposals for Ukraine
Speaking at the Munich Security Conference, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has called upon European NATO members to stop complaining and “get into the debate by coming up with concrete proposals and ideas.” This is exactly what Europeans should be doing.
One of the main failures of the Biden administration was its lack of a coherent strategy for the end game in Ukraine. While the current administration in Washington has outlined a vision, it has done so in a way that undermines European security by removing Ukraine’s NATO membership from the table and questioning its territorial integrity. As a result, it is now in Europe’s best interest to craft and pursue a strategy that upholds Ukraine’s territorial integrity and firmly rejects Russia’s right to dictate the security arrangements of other sovereign nations.
To achieve this, the EU should take the following actions:
- To address the most pressing issue – the initiation of negotiations with Russia by the US, the EU must present a unified front. It should appoint a representative for any potential negotiations on Ukraine who can serve as a counterpart to Ukraine Envoy Keith Kellogg and other negotiators on the US side.
- The EU holds significant leverage, with approximately €210 billion of Russian assets frozen within its borders. It should swiftly devise a plan to channel these funds to support Ukraine militarily, strengthening its position in any forthcoming negotiations.
- European NATO allies should champion Ukraine’s membership in the Alliance as the only viable security guarantee that stands any chance of being respected by the Kremlin. They must stress that no ally can unilaterally alter the collective decisions made at last year’s NATO Summit, including Ukraine’s “irreversible path” to membership.
- The EU must actively push back against any US efforts to impose conditions on Ukraine that could compromise its territorial integrity in the long term.
- Finally, the EU should be prepared to offer substantial military resources for deployment in Ukraine, tasked with monitoring any potential settlement and preventing Russia from launching future aggression, should a ceasefire be reached.
The imperative of a strong US-Europe alliance
Despite the high tensions of recent days, it’s essential to remember that NATO has upheld peace and security on both sides of the Atlantic for over 75 years, serving the strategic interests of both America and Europe.
The current situation must also be viewed in historical context. This is neither the first nor will it be the last crisis or misunderstanding between Europe and the US. Throughout the Cold War, the Alliance faced critical moments that pushed it to the brink – from the Suez Crisis in 1956 to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. It’s also important to note that Europeans have always been wary when Americans negotiated with Russia or the Soviet Union, as it was then. This was particularly evident in the period leading up to the Détente and the Helsinki Agreements, as well as during strategic arms control negotiations, where Europeans feared the US might withdraw its nuclear umbrella from the continent.
Though the context today is different, marked by a far more complex multipolar world as opposed to the relatively predictable dynamics of the Cold War, the US must recognise the stakes. If Washington aims to pivot its focus towards the Indo-Pacific to counter China, it risks offering Xi Jinping a golden opportunity to invade Taiwan if it imposes a flawed peace on Ukraine, leaving it abandoned in a geopolitical vacuum. The Indo-Pacific and Euro-Atlantic theatres are more interconnected than ever, and Ukraine has become a key test of US global credibility.
There’s no question that Europe must do more. But abandoning the transatlantic alliance would diminish US power and global leadership.
Juraj Majcin is a Policy Analyst with the Europe in the World Programme at the European Policy Centre.
The support the European Policy Centre receives for its ongoing operations, or specifically for its publications, does not constitute an endorsement of their contents, which reflect the views of the authors only. Supporters and partners cannot be held responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.