Europe has spent decades convincing itself that geopolitics has rules, that allies are trustworthy, and that sovereignty is sacred, at least on the continent. A heated transatlantic debate shows that these assumptions are finally crumbling.
During a debate on the consequences of Donald Trump’s threats against Greenland and Venezuela, organized on Tuesday by the Quincy Institute, high-ranking European and North American analysts presented a bleak diagnosis: Europe is caught between a Russia it fears, the unresolved war in Ukraine, and an America it can no longer trust but desperately needs.
What emerged from this debate was not Europe's unity, but its anxiety: about Russia's role in Europe's future, about Washington's reliability, and about Europe, quietly convinced to reach strategic impotence, writes Alex Raufoglu, the Washington correspondent for Kyiv Post who first revealed the U.S.'s intention to reduce troops in Romania.
Russia - existential enemy or strategic alibi?
Pascal Boniface, founding director of the French Institute for International and Strategic Affairs (IRIS), challenged what he called the increasingly distorted perception of Russia.
He argued that Russia is not about to conquer Europe. Moscow is still trying to subdue Ukraine - a country with about 30 million inhabitants - which makes the idea that it could militarily overwhelm a European Union with 450 million inhabitants deeply improbable.
That doesn't mean Russia isn't a threat. Boniface acknowledged Moscow's ability to destabilize Europe through cyber operations, political interference, and conflicts through proxies, especially in Africa. But the expert rejected the prevailing narrative of an imminent Russian invasion of Europe, considering it exaggerated and politically unfeasible.
The danger is psychological, he believes. Convinced that Russia poses an existential threat, Europe has fallen into the trap of the idea that only the United States can guarantee its survival, becoming unable to resist American pressure - even when that pressure undermines European sovereignty.
Zoltán Koskovics, director of the Geopolitical Unit at the Center for Fundamental Rights in Hungary, offered a more realistic approach. Washington, he noted, no longer expects Europe to be friendly with Russia but expects Europe to "stabilize" its relationship with Moscow.
This language comes directly from U.S. strategic documents, Koskovics emphasized. The long-term American assumption is that Europe should be able to balance its relationship with Russia on its own, a view generally shared by Hungary.
Zachary Paikin, a researcher at the Quincy Institute, went further, arguing that Europe's rigidity towards Russia is less about security and more about status. Ending the war in Ukraine through negotiations would involve treating Russia as an equal actor, something European leaders fear would diminish Europe's position in the international order.
This status-related anxiety has hardened Europe's approach to Moscow and prolonged the conflict, Paikin pointed out.
Ukraine: The war that has frozen European strategy
Europe has made Ukraine the centerpiece of its entire strategic vision of the world, often at the expense of realism. European leaders speak as if Russia is ready to march on Berlin, even though Moscow's army remains bogged down in eastern Ukraine, Boniface pointed out.
Paikin described Ukraine as the issue through which Europe has outsourced its strategic autonomy to Washington. By so closely linking its credibility and moral authority to Kiev, Europe has entrusted the United States with dominance, limiting its maneuverability in trade, diplomacy, or even territorial disputes like Greenland.
Koskovics included Ukraine in a broader critical perspective on Europe's situation. The war is part of an institutional and moral crisis - alongside mass migration, crime, and declining trust in political institutions - fueling the rise of populist parties promising a less ideological, more interest-based foreign policy.
America - ally or ideological adversary?
If Russia is Europe's fear, the United States is its dilemma, notes the author of the analysis.
Trump, whom Boniface described more as a predator than a protector, openly questioned Article 5 of NATO, mocked European leaders, and showed more personal respect for Vladimir Putin than for Washington's traditional allies.
According to the IRIS director, the idea of a unified "Western world" is no longer viable. Trump rejects multilateralism, international law, and the framework of values that Europe still clings to, even if imperfectly.
Koskovics disagreed with the "funeral rhetoric": what has collapsed is not the West, but the liberal technocratic ideology, he argued.
Trump's conflict with Europe is ideological, not civilizational: Washington wants Europe to control migration, abandon bureaucratic governance, and take responsibility for its own defense, including against Russia.
Paikin offered a cooler interpretation: the U.S. is increasingly focused on hemispheric dominance and competition with China.
Europe still matters, but much less than it once did. This shift exposes Brussels, especially as it continues to rely on Washington while refusing to diversify its strategic relationships.
Europe's Great Unease
Beyond arguments about Russia, Ukraine, and Trump, a deeper unease looms: Europe's fear of losing its relevance.
Paikin argued that Europe's harsh reaction to Trump's threats against Greenland - much stronger than its response to past violations of international law elsewhere - reflects a sudden realization that Europe itself is now vulnerable. What is at stake is not just territory but its status.
Boniface mentioned that European unity against Trump was driven by both public anger and principles. Trump is now deeply unpopular in Europe, making submission politically costly for national leaders.
Koskovics warned that Europe's current posture, one that is moralistic, divided, and strategically dependent, risks accelerating its decline. Without reform, the EU itself could fracture under external pressure.
Therefore, Europe is now caught between a Russia it cannot defeat, a war it cannot end, and an America it can no longer rely on but cannot escape.
It remains unclear whether this leads to genuine strategic independence or to a deeper dependency disguised as defiance.
What is clear, however, is that the era when Europe could assume protection, prestige, and moral authority all at once has ended, analysts concluded. And this time Washington may not come to the rescue, concludes Alex Raufoglu.
T.D.