For decades now the security partnership between the US and European Union has played a pivotal role in keeping Europe safe from external harm. However, the umbrella of safety that members of the European Union have rested under is now fraying. 

With Donald Trump’s re-election earlier this year came a wave of rules and policies that have rattled the world and left many feeling vulnerable. The renewal of Trump’s “America First” doctrine has cast a major doubt on NATO’S collective defense, and with Russia as a looming threat, Europe finds itself militarily exposed and politically vulnerable. The once reliable transatlantic shield now seems to be hanging by a thread, and so does the safety and security of countless European lives.

The dual challenge of Trump’s transactional diplomacy and Putin’s aggression has come as an unexpected reality check to Europe and has laid bare the continent’s alarming dependence on external sources. Not only does this change of circumstance concern diplomacy or defense spending, but it also poses a question to Europe’s identity. What does a sovereign Europe look like in a world where guarantees fade and threats multiply?

Trump’s America First: End of Atlantic Shield?

At the 2025 NATO summit in The Hague, Donald Trump yet again shook the foundations of the alliance. He questioned the U.S’s obligation to article 5, the cornerstone of NATO’s mutual defense, stating it “depends on your definition”, raising concern amongst European diplomats and leaders present. While NATO chief Mark Rutte insisted that there was no doubt about U.S partnership and loyalty, the reality was already laid bare. 

Trump’s disruptive rhetoric went beyond defense clauses. He demanded NATO members raise defense spending to 5% of GDP– well over the long standing 2% benchmark. While Spain rejected the demand outrightly, others like Poland and the Baltic countries went ahead, and pledged higher military budgets.

The summit revealed more than just budget tensions. With Trump outright disarray and changing stance, many European leaders went out of their way to flatter him: royal visits, photo ops, and the NATO Chief Mark Rutte’s referring to him as “Daddy”. Yet behind the event was benumbing anxiety. With Trump’s praise for Putin, skepticism of Ukraine aid, and outright disdain for global institutions have given way to European doubts and a major question: Will the U.S defend Europe in a real crisis?

Putin’s Persistent Threat from the East

While transatlantic trust frays, Putin is waging a full-spectrum campaign to destabilize Europe from within. His war on Ukraine remains brutal and grinding, but it’s just one front. Across the continent, Russian cyberattacks, election interference, disinformation campaigns, and energy blackmail have become routine.

Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen recently warned of “migration used as a weapon” and signaled that Europe could face direct military threats within five years. NATO intelligence agrees: Russia is reportedly preparing for possible escalation by 2029-30, ramping its defense budget to nearly 40% of federal spending.

But Putin’s true power lies in ambiguity. His aggression is designed not just to conquer but to divide. By threatening without triggering war, and meddling without accountability, the Kremlin is hitting Europe’s weakness- its strategic indecision.

Knowing this, Europe’s vulnerabilities are now visible to all. Inadequate coordination, overreliance on U.S tech, and the absence of a collective military doctrine leave the continent dangerously exposed. Putin’s pressure is accelerating a continental awakening- but it’s also testing the limits of Europe’s readiness. 

Europe Ready to Push for Strategic Sovereignty?

After years of hesitation, Europe is finally accepting the reality of the current world order “each to his own” and is finally responding. The question of strategic sovereignty, which is the ability to stand independently across military, economic and political spheres without relying on the protection or direction of outside powers, has become more relevant than ever for the European Union.

While Trump’s visit in June 2025 may have had many European leaders worried, the collective voice of Europe is to push for its security betterment. In March 2025, The European Commission unveiled its most ambitious defense initiative yet: Readiness 2030, also dubbed ReArm Europe. The plan could unlock up to €800 billion over four years, combining EU loans, member-state investments, and redirected cohesion funds to bolster air defense, cyber resilience, drone fleets, and dual-use infrastructure. 

Central to the plan is the SAFE (Security Action for Europe) instrument- a €150 billion credit facility requiring at least 65% of defense procurement to originate within the EU. Additionally, Brussels proposes exempting defense spending from EU fiscal rules, potentially unlocking another €650 billion in national investments.

Along with this political coordination is also deepening. The Weimar+ forum– comprising France, Germany, Poland, and the UK- has revitalized joint training and procurement discussions. French Prime Minister Macron is once again pushing for a “European Army,” with Germany’s Zeitenwende doctrine supporting a complete transformation of its defense posture, including 3.5% GDP military spending by 2029.Public sentiment is shifting as well. In Eastern Europe and Nordics, trust in U.S guarantees has fallen, while support for EU-centered defense has grown. Even in traditionally neutral countries like Ireland and Austria, debates around collective European defense are no longer a topic of contention. Still, tensions remain, countries like Spain, are opposing excessive spending or duplicating NATO efforts, stating that an increase in defense budget would force EU member states to buy foreign made military equipment, curtailing the EU attempts to better self-sufficiency. Yet the strategic direction is clear: Europe is moving from dependence to self-determination.

The Hard Truth: Limits to Sovereignty

Despite collective willingness to act independently and sizable investments, Europe’s path to strategic sovereignty sovereignty is fraught with constraints. While actionable treaties like the Treaty of Lisbon and the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) are in place to promote collective action for the safety and security of all EU members, the treaty comes with a major loophole. The treaty lays the legal foundation for a more robust EU military and security role, and enables cooperation, however real strategic cohesion depends on the political will of member states — which remains divided.Following industrial bottlenecks, Europe’s fragmented defense sector struggles with slow production rates and limited scalability concerning ammunition, drones, and air defense systems.

Furthermore, there are major investment gaps. While the Baltic countries and Poland are blazing ahead, other countries like France and Italy are finding it difficult to keep up with the previous 2% GDP target. Germany is accelerating, yet its ramp-up under Zeitenwende remains uneven and often bureaucratic.

Other political differences within the EU also pose a quieter yet serious challenge. Leaders like Hungary’s Viktor Orban and Slovakia’s Robert Fico have often shown their leniency towards Moscow. From blocking aid to Ukraine to diluting sanctions on Russia, their actions often serve Moscow’s interests over European Unity. Given the different ideologies and foreign policies at play, it is hard for Europe to speak and act as one. 

Along with this, the tech dependency persists, from missile defense to surveillance drones, much of Europe’s advanced military capability still relies on American firms like Anduril. These embedded partnerships make full independence politically and technically difficult.

Finally, Europe is missing a unified defense doctrine. Strategic cultures vary, each country has its own understanding of threats and policies on how to deal with them. The difference of policies and state interpretations hinder swift and collective responses to crises. 

In lieu of this, sovereignty seems out of reach. For now, the U.S. remains Europe’s only deterrent, with conditions applied.

What Lies Ahead

Europe’s future defense posture will depend on how well it can navigate three converging paths. First the Russian threat isn’t going away. Putin’s hybrid aggression, namely energy coercion, cyber warfare, and migration manipulation will continue. With Ukraine bearing the brunt of being the frontline state, discussions to integrate Kyiv into EU or NATO frameworks are quietly ongoing.

Second, defense collaboration is set to deepen. Whether sovereignty is on the cards or not, Europe has woken up to the reality of the current world order, and is preparing to better its posture for crises that might be headed its way. More joint defense collaborations, shared procurement, and pan- European defense R&D can be expected. Platforms like Weimar+ may expand, and Readiness 2030 could be followed by longer-term industrial policies akin to Europe’s green transition.

Third, strategic sovereignty requires more than monetary investment. It needs political unity, faster decision-making, and sustained public support. In lieu of this, the EU consensus model must evolve in order to build a credible and responsive defense mechanism.

Europe is moving, but slowly, cautiously and under tremendous pressure. The next few years will determine whether this is a temporary mobilization or a permanent transformation.

Is Europe Ready to Stand Alone?

Trump’s change of stance and Putin’s aggression have cast major doubt over Europe’s security. However, the continent is no longer shifting but rather cautiously recalibrating, with new budgets, new doctrines and a sense of determination.

But ambition alone is not enough. As of 2025, Europe remains heavily reliant on external promises, and achieving self-sufficiency will take some time. In lieu of the same, the European Union understands that strategic sovereignty will demand coordination, courage, and clarity. With shifting foreign policies and fading alliances, Europe’s self-defense will not only define its security—but will also determine its sovereignty.